Date: Fri May 09 1997 - 07:43:41 EDT
mostly to B-GREEK@virginia.edu & mostly re ephesians 5,19
but also to suggest to circles of friends, a list they can subscribe to get
answers, some good and some bad, to their questions about the original text.
been watching eph. 5 thread ca. a wk. instances of ev + dat. c. bantizw have
virually nil to say re ev + dat. c. pass. of entirely diff. verb.
enjoyed ken litwak's rejoinder re the lose-lose aspects of the discussion. good
re eph. 5,19 imagine that anyone would after several days examine the setting,
as edgar did! unepoxo = hyperocho! ausgezeichnet! edgar did well.
(& another couth comment from ed was re frequent ill-fittingness of taxonomy.
v. infra. also, what ed failed to add re TOUS MEN ... TOUS DE...TOUS DE...TOUS
DE in eph. 4,11 will have been, for the benefit especially of the not
linguistically adept conservatives, that there are only 4 groups here, not 5,
because the last group is described 2 ways: shepherds and instructors -- the
same bunch being both. i think, after a day or two, someone's translation
implied that. & quote from psalm pre 4,11 has real opening for some far
fetchedness regarding the fact that the domata were "for the rebellious also"!
(of course, for me ou romanized or anglicized > u, thus shape based touc mev =
tus men, but shape based not in diphthong u > y -- so the whole history of
greek studies and technical terminology until some influential baptists did
their germanic innovations.)
prelimin. general comment on verb use and constructions admissible with them:
just think of rapid alteration, at first largely innovation from dimwits then
pickup up on by broad-minded wits, in my own generation, e.g. 'have impact upon
x' is ignorantly verbed into 'impact on x' and then the on is ignorantly
dropped, even though that already meant hit instead of influence, &c.
hellenistic greek's full of the same kind of changes.
seems that the discussion of eph. 5 evolved and revolved without much parallel
poop on what's possible in the syntax of 'fill'. except for the prepositionless
dative citation or two -- or was there only rom. 1,29 cited? i'd've like to
have see comment on gal. 5,14, 2 cor. 7,4, 2 mac. 6,5 & 12,16, 3 mac. 4,16 and
on the eic = is in eph. 3,19.
Isaiah 52:7(LXX) many of the clauses with wc = hos, its compounds and some
others used as conjunctions illustrate the partial nature of assumed
syntactical categories, scil. along with clauses causal, final, concessive,
temporal, &c. -- proviso: if those be valid, then -- only crass blinders would
keep a grammarian from adding something like similitudinal, or homoeotic, to
cover the numerous and frequent express (because intoduced by a conjunction)
parataxis in the phrasse "asyndetische Parataxe" seems to be used as distinct
from hypotaxis, that's all. if i say "saw, admired, attracted" it's just as
non-hypotactice as if i said "saw and admired and attracted". no logic says
parataxis has to have kai's or et's or te's or anything else. after writing
this, i see philip had caught the point and already mentioned it.
i've forgotten who posted the following unusually clear statement, but i'd like
to pin a medal on'm
<<In order to clear the muddy water a little (or perhaps stir it up even more),
we can distinguish between (1) the way an action really is (out there in the
real world, independent of the way we talk about that action), (2) the way that
action is perceived by a language user, and (3) the way that same language user
decides to portray that action.>>
yep. a fine list, but one needs to add (4): the way the language user may miss
the desired portrayal (scil. by choosing language that ill accomplishes the
intended portrayal in the respective linguistic pool) a not infrequent
phenomenon, especially in the ogr. documents. this last comment could reveal to
some of you how sorely (_~germ. sehr) you need me.
(a bit analogous to an 'etymology' question: i can easily show that false
etymologies will often have been far more relevant to an accurate picture of
lexical thought maps than true ones!)
(bear in mind i spend small time on internet arguing words, because my central
mission concerns personal linkage of my correspondents with the living Jesus by
the Holy Ghost. for me 'word of G_d' does not = bible, but Jesus Himself, who
became flesh, not print. but after the righter trial fracas blows over in our
gen. conv. this summer, i'll be with you more, i hope.)
bearded bill of asheville <email@example.com>
unca not having approved either whom or thereof.
p.s. another quick comment on para- and hypotaxis: to be unotaktikh =
hypotactice > subordinata, in the instance of 2+ finite verbs, the sub=hypo
status will have been indicated with a non-paratactic conjunction, otherwise
it's para- = con (from cum), conjunction or not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:15 EDT