From: virgilsalvage1 (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 23 2001 - 00:59:22 EDT
Dear Clayton and all...
Clayton, I enjoyed your description of how we are a few canyons apart on
this matter of the genitive case. You said..."I think we are traveling down
different roads with a couple of mountain
ranges in between. That might explain the terminology problem since we are
not only using different terms but approaching the problems with a whole
different set of methods, assumptions and so forth. There is nothing wrong
with this but it does make it hard to exchange ideas.
Thanks for your response, I read it twice but I don't really understand it."
A comment in Robertson's grammar concerning " EK " is interesting as
regards the genitive case when he says..." In the late Greek ( eight century
A.D.) we find the accusative with EK, and this was the last usage to
The point is then, that prior to this; that is in early Greek and N.T.
times EK is with a genitive cased word. What I believe this shows us is that
early writers and speakers were looking " in and into " the processes behind
matters they were considering. Not just casually noticing them happen and
noting it with the accusative, which expresses that which extends from or is
an extension of the verb. Casual notice. If this was the mind-set and type
of thinking during the time of Luke 9:7b we would, I believe, be seeing some
accusative type of statement from Luke regarding the opinion of some that
John the Baptist had raised from the dead. Is this a fair conjecture ?
EIS is accusative....traveling toward with the potential of result. EN
is dative...it's been around that someone or something long enough to be
taking on a representation or personification of it. However, EK has to be
genitive..speaking and indicating ( GENOS ). It (EK) has completed the
travel of EIS, it has arrived. It has been not only around but EN in a real
and substantial way so that it has now " taken on " what it has traveled to
and through. And now is coming " out of " having taken on the charateristic
of what it is coming out of or..... has brought to and affected what it has
passed through with it's own characteristic. That's why Luke's statement
concerning what " some " were thinking about John the Baptist is in the
genitive. Why else don't we find some phrase in the accusative that speaks "
raised 'from' the dead ?"
What I'm suggesting is that if the genitive case can give specification
to, that is "kind of "to something or someone, must that not mean that some
kind of sending to and through, resulting in "a taking on of" has in fact
occurred in some kind of real way ? Otherwise...I say with you, the
sub-categories and classifications of the genitive have no semantic value.
What we are told they indicate can be garnered from the preposition and
context. If that's true then we don't need the genitive and neither did the
Greeks. However if it developed and came to be ( the genitive case ) to
express their looking into the very real processes that were producing
things and persons relating to "kind" then the import of the genitive case
holds for us a whole different perspective concerning the meanings and
hence, realities behind the language we are considering here on B-Greek.
I don't consider the preceding to be characterized by rambling, however
neither am I presenting it as something technical. I am thinking about these
things carefully and appreciate being able to present and work with them
Perhaps with some of these principles I have suggested, would someone
not only give them consideration, but consider them by looking at some
genitive constructions you are familiar with and explore the possibilities.
Salt Lake City, Utah
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:57 EDT