From: Jim Beale (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 23 1998 - 17:36:38 EST
I've seen evidence in a recent study of usage in the Pauline
corpus, that there is a difference in the nuance of meaning
of GINWSKW or AGNOEW depending on whether it is or isn't
followed immediately by hOTI.
It seems to me that GINWKSW XYZ tends to blur the boundary
between the subject and object of knowledge, whereas the
same followed by hOTI tends to sharpen the boundary between
the two. The same seems to hold in English, "to know XYZ"
can be quite a different idea from "to know THAT XYZ." In
the former, the subject and object are less distinct, where
in the latter the two are viewed as quite distinct.
Has anyone else thought about this?
The good man does not grieve that other people
do not recognize his merits. His only anxiety
is lest he should fail to recognize theirs.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:08 EDT