From: Clayton Bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 02 1997 - 08:51:18 EDT
My last post on this probably raised some eyebrows. Why suggest
IDIOS as a second person possessive when the classical intensive
pronouns in the genitive are readily available? Well, several
grammarians BDF, Porter, and others suggest that the classical
intensive pronouns was falling into disuse in the Koine. I would
guess that the reason for this is that the classical intensive
pronoun had lost its punch as an intensive form and therefor was
being relegated to the trash heap of language anachronisms.
IDIOS is not the most normal way of indicating possession in the
second person but examples do exist (e.g., 1Thes 2:14, 4:11). The
fact that it is not normal would make it useful for drawing
attention to the idea of possession. It would be a less bland way of
stating it than OUK ESTIN SOU ANHR.
What I am drawing attention to here is the notion of semantic
marking. I am suggesting that the form of the statement: OUK ESTIN
SOU ANHR is the semantically unmarked way of indicating
possession. It does not draw particular attention to possession.
For this reason it probably does not provide enough information
to determine the nature of ownership which was the force of the
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:21 EDT