From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jul 17 2000 - 14:37:52 EDT
on 07/17/00 10:49 AM, Rick H Duggin wrote:
> Jeremiah 39:4 (LXX) warns that Zedekiah will not
> be saved out of the hand of the Chaldeans,
> hOTI PARADOSEI PARADOQHSETAI EIS CEIRAS
> BASILEWS BABULWNOS, KAI LALHSEI STOMA
> AUTOU PROS STOMA AUTOU, KAI hOI OFQALMOI
> AUTOU TOUS OFQALMOUS AUTOU OYONTAI.
> As I was reading this passage, I was a little uncertain
> about the pronoun/antecedent connection. I think the
> "he" in LALHSEI refers to Nebuchadnezzar, not to
> Zedekiah. Is this right?
It looks to me like Zedekiah is the subject of LALHSEI and OYONTAI. Why?
Because Zedekiah is the center of the action in the first two verbs SWQHi
and PARADOSEI PARADOQHSETAI. I would suspect that he is still the center of
attention in LALHSEI and OYONTAI. I have not spent much time on this and
could be wrong about it.
> Assuming this to be correct, then the first STOMA AUTOU
> must surely refer to Nebuchadnezzar, and the second must
> refer to Zedekiah. Right again?
> Finally, assuming these things to be correct, I would think
> that the OFQALMOI AUTOU refers to Nebuchadnezzar,
> while the OFQALMOUS AUTOU refers to Zedekiah.
The answer to this is neither of the above. The expressions:
STOMA AUTOU PROS STOMA AUTOU
hOI OFQALMOI AUTOU TOUS OFQALMOUS
are adverbial constituents which do not require analysis at the word level.
They function like adverbs to limit the verbs LALHSEI and OYONTAI. There is
no antecedent of "the first STOMA AUTOU" etc.
> Question: In translating/interpreting/connecting pronouns
> and their antecedents, is there a guideline which applies in
> most cases?
NT Greek provides morphological clues like gender and number to help you
determine the antecedent of an anaphoric constituent. However, the semantic
structure of the immediate context is the final authority in cases where
there is ambiguity.
> Can someone
> PROVE that my explanations above are right or wrong.
Probably not, if you mean something like a mathematical proof.
>is it a matter of judgment and common sense?
Not really. The analysis of the semantic structure of a text is a learned
skill which requires a good theoretical model plus a lot of practice. Common
sense will not get you there.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:32 EDT