From: Moon-Ryul Jung (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jun 28 1999 - 22:28:03 EDT
>> KAI ANABLEYAS ELEGEN, BLEPW TOUS ANQRWPOUS hOTI hWS DENDRA hORW
The way I
would express the usage now in question is that hOTI does mean
fundamentally, "the fact being that ..." and that the causal hOTI is the
most common usage of this hOTI.
Is GAR interchangeable with hOTI in many cases?
I wouldn't want to say so; it seems to me that a hOTI clause tends more to
clarify an assertion that is a bit vague, while a GAR clause explains WHY
previous assertion is valid.
Carl, a hOTI clause can be used to state a reasons for the previous
assertion. As you said, the causal hOTI is the most common usage
of the hOTI as "the fact being that ...". We may say that
the relationship between two clauses connected by GAR is
"conclusion-ground". Do we have to say that the relationship between two
connected by hOTI is primarily "assertion-clarification", even when
the relationship seems causal?
--- 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 - 15:40:31 EDT