Re: Participial Salience - Longacre

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Tue Feb 29 2000 - 01:23:40 EST

<x-charset ISO-8859-1>Perhaps I should clarify this question a bit. Look at Col. 1:3-4ff. In
verse 4 AKOUSANTES . . . could be understood as stating a prior
circumstance or condition limiting the finite verb EUXARISTOUMEN in
verse 3.

It seems to me that the salience of AKOUSANTES is lower than
EUXARISTOUMEN. It also seems that AKOUSANTES . . . could have been
placed before EUXARISTOUMEN without having any appreciable effect on its
salience or semantic function. The change of order would have rhetorical
side effects but AKOUSANTES . . . would still have the same semantic
function and I will also risk saying it would have the same salience.

This is not a great counter example since it isn't part of a Gospel
narrative which is the subject of Longacre's article. Can someone come
up with an example like this from the Gospels or Acts?

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

---------- >From: "clayton stirling bartholomew" <> >To: Biblical Greek <> >Subject: Participial Salience - Longacre >Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2000, 1:47 PM >

> R. E. Longacre* states that the salience of a preposed participle > (before the finite verb) is relative to the finite verb it is associated > with and less than that verb (see his chart on page 179). This means > that a preposed participle dependent on a finite verb in the imperfect > will have less salience than preposed participles dependent on finite > verbs in the aorist or historical present. > > Longacre also states (p, 177) that a postposed participle (after the > finite verb) "is of the same semantic rank as the verb it follows; that > is, it is consecutive on the preceding main verb and continues its > function." > > My question is about postposed participles. It seems that Longacre's > scheme makes the postposed participle a completely different animal from > the preposed participle. In other words, he seems to be saying that the > semantic and syntactic function of the participle is dependent on word > order. Does this wash? Can we say without qualification that the > position of the participle relative to its finite verb determines its > semantic and syntactic function in the discourse? > > I am particularly interested in seeing examples where the postposed > participle seems to function like a preposed participle. In other words > I am looking for counter examples to help clarify Longacre's salience > scheme. > > > * Page 177ff, Porter, Stanley E. & Jeffrey T. Reed „Discourse Analysis > and the New Testament, Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. >

--- B-Greek home page: You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [] To unsubscribe, forward this message to To subscribe, send a message to


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:01 EDT