From: George Blaisdell (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 12 1999 - 14:02:01 EDT
>From: "Moon-Ryul Jung"
> > >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.
> > > HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.
> > >Based on the data you provided, I would render it as
> > > "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)
>But George Blaisdell thinks EXHRAMMENHN is clearly
>His decisions would force him to render Mk 3.1 as
>" There was there a man having his withered hand."
>But this sounds akward. As long as we take THN CEIRA as THN hEAUTOU CEIRA,
>I think there is NO WAY to take the participle EXHRAMMENHN as attributive.
The key phrase is EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA, where ECWN ties together
EXHRHMMENHN and THN CEIRA. [Just as EXHRAMMENHN ties together what preceeds
and follows it.]
So that 'being withered the hand' or better, 'the hand being withered' would
seem to slide easily into what might be called idiomatic attribution of
possession, because of ECWN, a participle that clearly 'has' [possession],
The possesive ECWN idiomatically 'distributes' its force to what it ties
together, giving us in English "Having his hand withered", rather than
'having his withered hand.'
The hand clearly has a very distinctive attribute, does it not? It is
withered!! Hence EXHRAMMENHN is attributive of CIERA.
Am I making any sense of this for you??
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
--- 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 - 15:40:26 EDT