Date: Fri May 23 1997 - 06:48:04 EDT
the rms mailer on our old dec vms system had a notice in my packet that
something from me to b-greek did not make it and it seems probably this had to
do with periphrastics.
i was commending wineberry for the highly relevant citation of ectiv gegpammeva
= gegpantai in jn 20,30-31.
and had pointed out that only phenomenon of plural subjects in neuter as taking
a singular verb made that interchange possible. had it been eici gegpammevoi or
eici gegpammevai, there would have been no one word form available, because the
standard, cited 3rd plural passive indicative form from attic on will have been
and i had intended to refer to other texts where periphrastics seem to have no
difference in meaning from one word forms where those are available:
what would you make of instances in the synoptics, for example, where luke has
hv didackwv 4,31 while mark has edidacke 1,21? couldn't one glean several more
of these from the synoptics? don't they at least tend toward 'no distinction'?
granted that special problems can beset synoptic interchangeability, the method
nonetheless calls in question a great many asserted but unsupported fine
distinctions. i remember debating years ago a fellow who wanted to push the
idea that ev kapdia with yallovtec in eph. 5,19 had to make it silent music and
could not mean 'heartily' or 'with all your heart' which, said he, would have
to be ek kapdiac. he was disconcerted by the fact that in the synoptic versions
of the shema, one has ek kardias where another has ev kapdia. so. it's a form
of evidence you want never to overlook.
bearded bill of asheville <firstname.lastname@example.org>
unca not having approved either whom or thereof.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:16 EDT