From: Iver Larsen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 01:30:39 EST
> >> > >> >In Gal 3:8 we have:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >PROIDOUSA DE hH GRAFH hOTI EK PISTEWS DIKAIOI TA EQNH hO QEOS,
> >> > >> >PROEUANGGELISATO TWi ABRAHAM hOTI ENEULOGHQHSONTAI EN SOI
> >> > >> >PANTA TA EQNH.
> Well, I'd say we don't HAVE a participial clause here; rather we have a
> subject, hH GRAFH and a circumstantial participle explaining WHY "scripture
> fore-evangelized to Abraham."
When N-A and the UBS Greek texts put a comma after QEOS I interpreted this to
mean that the first line above was considered by these editors to be a
participial clause. How do you interpret that comma? How do they decide where to
I can see that there could just be one main clause with hH GRAFH as subject and
the complex participial construction could modify the subject as part of an NP
(S). Are there particular grammatical reasons that lead you to opt for not
interpreting this as a participial dependant clause? Would you then not put a
comma after QEOS? I don't think it makes any difference to the meaning, but I am
interested in the grammatical reasons for one analysis rather than the other.
The connector DE was left out originally, so I have put it back in. Does this
word make any difference to the grammatical analysis?
Or are we referring to the same thing with different grammatical terms? I am not
familiar with all the traditional English terms used in describing Greek
Would, say, Mat 2:22 then also have a circumstantial participle rather than a
AKOUSAS DE hOTI ARCELAOS BASILEUEI THS IOUDAIAS ANTI TOU PATROS AUTOU hHRWIDOU
EFOBHQH EKEI APELQEIN.
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 - 15:36:50 EDT