[b-greek] Re: Gal 3:8 ( the dangling subject)

From: Moon-Ryul Jung (moon@saint.soongsil.ac.kr)
Date: Mon Feb 12 2001 - 07:50:06 EST


> > At 8:20 AM -0500 2/11/01, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
> > >[Moon]
> > >> >In Gal 3:8 we have:
> > >> >
> > >> >PROIDOUSA hH GRAFH hOTI EK PISTEWS DIKAIOI TA EQNH hO QEOS,
> > >> >PROEUANGGELISATO TWi ABRAHAM hOTI ENEULOGHQHSONTAI EN SOI
> > >> >PANTA TA EQNH.
> > >> >
> > >
> > >[Carl]
> > >> Is the distance between PROEUAGGELISATO from hH GRAFH the real problem? I
> > >> think the only thing distancing that verb from the subject is the need to
> > >> complete the object of PROIDOUSA by giving the entire hOTI clause.
> > >
> > >[Moon]
> > >Is there any reason why Paul did not write as follows?
> > >
> > > PROIDOUSA hOTI EK PISTEWS DIKAIOI TA EQNH hO QEOS,
> > >> >PROEUANGGELISATO hH GRAFH TWi ABRAHAM hOTI ENEULOGHQHSONTAI EN SOI
> > >> >PANTA TA EQNH.
> >
> >
[Iver]
> It seems to me that Moon' suggestion is more complex to process mentally than
> what Paul said, because then the subject GRAFH is missing from where it is
> needed most. Carl has a good point that Paul did not write the text down and
> then went back over it to push it into shape. He had to formulate his thoughts
> in his mind before saying/dictating them. Similarly, the letter was intended to
> be understood by people who heard it read.
>
> In this example, hH GRAFH is the semantic agent (subject) for both the finite
> clause and the fronted participial, dependent clause. Once the participle
> PROIDOUSA has been heard, the hearer is waiting for a feminine noun as subject.
> It is easier to connect PROIDOUSA with GRAFH if GRAFH occurs as soon as posible
> after PROIDOUSA, rather than having to keep a lot of other stuff in the mind
> until finally in the finite clause, you hear the subject GRAFH.
>

[Moon]
I agree with you. The best way to convey the idea is to translate it as
follows:

The scripture foreseeing that God will justify the Gentiles by faith,
it fore-evangelized to Abraham that all the gentiles will be blessed in
you.

I do not think it violates the grammar of English. In this case,
the participial clause is what is called "nominative absolute".
It is used when the subject of the participial clause is
different from the subject of the main clause. But I think this
construction
can be used even when both subjects are the same, if
it is not so easy to infer the subject of the participial clause for some
reasons.

Anyway, the hidden reason for my original question was whether this
sentence can be considered an instance of "nominative absolute" in
Greek. In this case hH GRAFH is surely the subject of the participial
clause. You said that it is the "semantic" subject, meaning that it is
not the subject of the participial clause grammatically speaking.
Grammatically it is the subject of the main clause. Now, what is the
reason
for denying hH GRAFH the status of the subject of the participial
clause? If we consider hH GRAFH the subject of the participial clause,
then this participial clause can be called "nominative absolute".
What do you think?

Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
 


> Another aspect is that Greek has a general principle which could be formulated:
> "first things first". (Anaphoric reference is much easier to process than
> kataphoric, especially in oral communication.) And one often has to supply
> lexical items from the previous context. They are carried over in the back of
> the mind and supplied where needed. So, if underlyingly both the dependant
> participial clause and the finite clause have the same subject GRAFH, it is
> normal to keep the first occurrence and delete the second, since the second can
> then be supplied from what has already been said.
>
> There was a interesting example of this carrying-over the other day in the
> construction from Rom 4:16:
> EIS TO EINAI BEBAIAN THN EPAGGELIAN PANTI TWi SPERMATI, OU TWi EK TOU NOMOU
> MONON ALLA KAI TWi
> EK PISTEWS ABRAAM
>
> The word SPERMATI can easily be carried forward and supplied to fill out the
> following phrases:
> OU TWi SPERMATI EK TOU NOMOU MONON ALLA KAI TWi SPERMATI EK PISTEWS ABRAAM.
> (So that the promise would surely apply to ALL descendants (of Abraham), not
> only to those (who are) descendants (of Abraham after the flesh, i.e. Jews) on
> the basis of the law, but also to those (who are) descendants (of Abraham,
> spritually speaking, Jews or Gentiles) on the basis of having faith like
> Abraham.)
>
> Iver Larsen

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:50 EDT