Participial Salience - Longacre

From: Wayne Leman (
Date: Tue Mar 14 2000 - 17:58:44 EST

<x-charset iso-8859-1>Forward from Bob Longacre:

From: Bob Longacre <>

>Dear Correspondents: Thanks to Clayton S Bartholomew for suggesting frther
>investigation into the possible relevance and limitations of my stement rd.
>participle in NT Greek. But the full context of my statement of my claim is
in a
>context of chaining languages. I compare the prepoesed participial clause
>NTGreek to a medial verb in such medial-final chaining langauages of Papus
>Guinea and highland Ethiopia, a dS America while comapring the postposed
>participial clause to a consecutive verb in such initial-consecutive lgs.
>East Africa (and Biblical Hebrew). Why could not order of participial
>to main clause determine such difference in function,But reality has a way
>being complicated and I would like discussion on this point. My suggestion
>be overly simplistic.
> Bob Longacre

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