From: Clayton Bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 05 1997 - 13:29:00 EDT
Semantic Domain of Prepositional Prefixs, Revisited
First a note to Bill Thurman from Asheville:
I am going to give your suggestion a try. I have the NA26/Neo-Vulagte
diglot so it will
be a chance to use it. Also Ropes includes the Latin of Codex Bezae in
Bill Thurman Wrote:
the thought maps of certain preposiitons will have overlapped with those
other prepositions. how can one begin to develop conceptual expertise
where they overlap?
for those who read latin: practice looking at the latin and trying to
the greek from it, then look and see what the greek actually has. then
same in reverse.
In response to Sara R. Johnson and Mr. Lynn A Kauppi:
I think I agree with Sara here. All redundancy is not bad. High art can
involve a lot of repetition. Music, visual art, and poetry all use it as
a major design element. I have no real problem with the repetition of
the prepositon in Greek syntax.
What puzzles me no end is the cavalier attitude that the scribe(s) in
Codex Bezae (or Vaticanus) appear to have toward prepositional prefixes
on verbs, changing them, deleting them, adding them as if the
prepositional prefix were somewhat irrelevant to the semantic domain of
the verb. Carlton Winbery addressed this issue well (quoted below) but I
still have a sense that not every occurrence of this scribal practice
was an attempt to change the meaning of the verb to a more
appropriate one for the context.
The question I am raising is one of the semantics of compound Greek
verbs and the validity of attaching a lot of weight to prepositional
prefixes. I am suggesting that certain scribal practices indicate a
general lack of reverence for these prefixes.
Codex Bezae when compared to Vaticanus shows evidence that one of these
families was edited; that a conscious rational process of revision
of these textual families. I am suggesting that part of this conscious
revision was changing the prepositional prefixes on numerous verbs and I
question that this practice can attributed in all cases to clarifying
meaning as Carlton Winbery has so capably argued below. I am arguing
scribal practices are a form of evidence considering the semantic
(or lack thereof) of certain prepositional prefixes.
Carlton Winbery Wrote:
The preposition added to a verb sometimes changes the meaning such as
GINWSKW and ANAGINWSKW. In other cases the preposition may only
intesify the meaning such as STREFW and ANASTREFW.
In Acts 4:2 the reading DIAPONOUMENOI DIA is a bit difficult in the
context. It is used more for working something out by hard work whereas
KATAPONOUMENOI carries more the idea of make something hard or to become
exercised about. For that reason in D the substitution was made, which
is common in D.
War and Mayhem
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:14 EDT