[b-greek] RE: Act 7:59 (NP constituents- attributive or predicative) (to Iver)

From: Moon-Ryul Jung (moon@saint.soongsil.ac.kr)
Date: Sat Mar 24 2001 - 04:29:45 EST

Dear Iver,
> > Luke 22:45 hEUREN KOIMWMENOUS AUTOUS 'he found them SLEEPING!'
> > [Moon]
> >
> > I would like to ask why you consider KOIMWMENOUS AUTOUS as an NP.
> Mainly because it agrees with AUTOUS in number, gender and case. It cannot refer
> to the implied subject (Jesus) and it is not subordinated to the finite verb.
> >

But the agreement with AUTOUS in number, gender and case is not only
the property of modifiers but also that of predicates.
The participle is not subordinated to the finite verb, but is associated
with the object NP AUTOUS. The nature of this association should be
analyzed. Considering KOIMWMENOUS AUTOUS as an NP means taking a
particular analysis.

> > It is based on the basic principle:
> > (1) The modifiers of the head noun contributes
> > to determining the referent of the NP.
> > (2) Predicates explain the referent of the NP, which is
> > already determined.
> I am not familiar with such a principle, either from general linguistics or
> Greek grammar. Can you explain the reason and rationale for it? It seems to me
> that the principle uses a pragmatic criteria to determine a syntactical
> question, and that, to me, is questionable.


1) The principle is that a constituent is a modifier of a head noun if it
contributes to the determination of the referent of the head noun. It is
simply the definition of a modifier.

I did not learn it from any book or teacher. But I always thought it was
obvious principle. The structure of a sentence is often indeterminate
without interpretation. So, using a pragmatic criteria to fully determine
structure of the sentence is valid.

But first of all, I do not consider KOIMWMENOUS AUTOUS as an NP
because the following analysis comes to my mind.
This analysis has been long taught in English school grammar.
What is the problem with this analysis?

V NP(O)-complement NP(O)

'he found them SLEEPING
 NP(S) V NP(O) NP(O)-Complement
In this analysis, NP(O)-Comp is a predicate that
explains NP(O), rather than a modifer of NP(O).

Moon-Ryul Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

I must concede that

In sum, the syntactic I have no problem with determining syntactic
categoryto me syntactic category

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 - 15:36:53 EDT