Re: Multiple Simultaneous Functions

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Sat Jan 17 1998 - 12:09:53 EST


On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 09:07:26 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
<cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
>At 4:05 AM -0600 1/15/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:

>>This is a very basic question. Can a single syntactic element in a
>>clause have multiple simultaneous functions at the same level of
analysis?
>>
>>I have been thinking for some time about comments more than one
>>senior member of the list have made about the functions of
circumstantial
>>participles. These comments appear to affirm that a circumstantial
participle >>can function *simultaneously* both as an adverb and as an
adjective in >>apposition to a substantive.
>>
>>It is the simultaneous aspect of this question that is bothering me.
>>I have always operated on the assumption that, in any single instance,
a
>>syntactic element in a clause can serve only one function at a given
level of
>>analysis. If this is not the case then I will need to rethink a lot of
things.

snip

>I am not exactly sure just what your question means (what else is new?),
>but let me respond to a couple possible points:
>
>If by functions, you mean something as simple as that a circumstantial
>participle may function as an adjective insofar as it must agree with
>an implicit or explicit pronoun or substantive even while at the same
>time it may function like an adverbial clause in indicating time,
clause,
>purpose, etc. thus:

> APO PETRAS BLHQEIS APOQANEITAI hO KLEPTHS
>
> "The robber, since/because/when/although hurled from the rock,
>will die"
>
>(a) Although to be fully attributive, the participle ought to have an
>article:
>
> hO APO PETRAS BLHQEIS KLEPTHS or hO KLEPTHS hO APO >PETRAS
BLHQEIS

>so that it could be authentically translated as "the robber who gets
>hurled from the rock"--i.e. as a substantival participle or the
equivalent of
>a relative clause, nevertheless it would not be illegitimate to
>translate it the first formulation as: "The robber will die, hurled from
the rock."
>Now, you tell me in that instance whether "hurled" is adjectival or
adverbial or
>both?
>
>(b) While an unqualified circumstantial participle is ambivalent and
>could be understood potentially to be causal, concessive, temporal,
etc.,
>yet particles can be used to clarify/delimit the "function" of a
>participle,thus:
>
> (1) KAIPER APO PETRAS BLHQEIS OUK APOQANEITAI hO KLEPTHS
>
>where KAIPER has an "even if" or "although" element that delimits the
>sense of BLHQEIS to being concessive;
>
> (2) hOTI APO PETRAS BLHQEIS APOQANEITAI hO KLEPTHS
>
>where hOTI pretty much indicates that the participle should be
>understood in a causal sense;
>
> (3) hWS APOQANOUMENOS APOBLHQHSETAI hO KLEPTHS
>
>where hWS with the future participle indicates that execution is the
>purpose of the robber's being hurled from the rock.
>
>In my opinion the wide-ranging applicability of the participle and of
>the article are two of the factors that account for extraordinarily rich
>expressive capabilities of classical/ancient Greek; for the very same
>reason they are two of the factors that render the learning and
>mastery of classical/ancient Greek more tricky than we would really like
to
>acknowledge.

Ok, you have argued that a participle having an adverbial form can occur
in the first or second attributive position. Is it not rather the
attributive position of the participle that indicates it should be taken
attributively rather than adverbially?

How about a participle having an attributive form, but occurring
adverbially, like (surprise) APEIQHSASIN in 1 Pet 3:20? At one point,
did you argue that it should be taken attributively because it agreed
with PNEUMASIN in person, number and gender? Or, were you just saying it
agrees with the substantive? If so, so what? Does that mean it should
be taken attributively, as most translations reflect? We agree, I
believe, that it should be taken adverbially. The question, as I
understand Clay, is: are you saying it can or should be taken both ways?

The question is not unlike the one regarding the significance of an
anarthrous noun. Can it be both definite and qualitative? The answer, I
believe, is that we should be expecting and looking for one particular
nuance. Assumption: the author normally has a particular nuance in any
given context.

As applied to the participles, it does seem the participle should be
taken attributively, if it occurs in either of the attributive positions,
and adverbially, if it occurs otherwise, regardless of the form. Sure
there are exceptions to this, but isn't this basically true?

Paul Dixon



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:57 EDT