From: Mark Wilson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Oct 07 2001 - 20:51:13 EDT
>But back to TE KAI in Rom. 3:9. I doubt the A TE KAI Y in itself implies
>emphasis on one or the other of the two elements, which seems to agree with
>Denniston. On the other hand, the item to the left generally has prominence
>(sorry, my pet theme). I would be interested in seeing any context where
>second item could be said to be more prominent than the first.
It is hard for me to see prominence with an item to the left when
there is no alternative. That is, the writer is forced to put one
item before the other. And it would seem that under your pet theme,
a writer can not mention two items EQUALLY, since one HAS to be mentioned
I would be more inclined to see prominence or emphasis when a particular
construct has more than one way of being expressed.
Would you comment on this; I am not saying that you are
wrong; I am merely trying to understand how a writer gives prominence
to the A of an A TE KAI B construct. In THIS kind of construct, there
would be know way of expressing B TE KAI A, right?
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
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 - 15:37:08 EDT