[b-greek] Re: Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi

From: Iver Larsen (iver_larsen@sil.org)
Date: Sun Dec 02 2001 - 07:23:10 EST


Dear Steven,

Just a couple of linguistic comments to some of your statements.
>
> (1) hAMARTWLOS is used 47 times in the NT. According to Accordance, in
> 38 of these instances, it is substantival, and in only 9 cases is it
> adjectival (in those 38 instances Accordance actually tags hAMARTWLOS as
> a noun). I think 9 is high, but I'm trying to be as fair as possible. So
> hAMARTWLOS in the NT is far more likely to be a substantive than an
> adjective.

Although BAGD and L&N make a lexical sense distinction between this word as
an adjective and as a noun, I see no compelling linguistic reason for doing
so. Such a distinction is a reflection of the fact that German and English
happen to have both an adjective "sinful" and a noun "sinner".
It would be quite adequate to say that hAMARTWLOS is an adjective, full
stop. Very often this adjective, like many other adjectives in Greek, and a
few in English, is used with the head of the noun phrase implicit. Such an
implicit head is either the generic semantic concept of "thing" or "person",
or it may be supplied from the preceding context.
There is no semantic difference between "a sinful person" and "a sinner".
When hAMARTWLOS modifies an explicit noun, it is used in a way which is
called adjectival. When the head noun is implied, it is used in a way which
is called substantival.
It is correct that this particular adjective is in the majority of cases
used without an explicit noun to modify. This is because only people can be
sinful. "A sinful one" is always "a sinful person"="a sinner".
>
> (2) Note the construction personal pronoun-article-noun (13 times not
> counting Luke 18.13, which Accordance also tags as a noun: Mark 7.6;
> Luke 11.39,42-43,46,52; 12.4; Acts 4.11; 1 Cor 4.9; Eph 2.11; 3.1; 4.1;
> 2 Tim. 1.8). By the very nature of things, the article-noun
> constructions in these verses cannot be attributive. They must be
> appositive. This is important to remember as we move to the next point.
>
> (3) As far as I can tell, the construction personal
> pronoun-article-adjective occurs 5 times in the NT (Luke 6.24; John
> 6.70; Rom 15.1; Gal 6.1; Eph 3.8; as I said, Accordance tags hAMARTWLWi
> in Luke 18.13 as a noun). Keeping in mind the analogy of personal
> pronoun-article-noun above, I think we can see that understanding the
> adjectives in these cases as substantival is not only perfectly
> natural, but preferable. And, again keeping in mind the analogy, I think
> taking them attributively involves thinking in English rather than
> Greek. I can't think of one good reason why we should understand any of
> these as attributive, especially with the analogy afforded us by the
> construction with nouns above.

You have some nice examples here. In addition to the adjectival-substantival
contrast, you now focus on an apposition-attributive contrast. I don't see
the strong opposition between these two as you seem to imply. I'd like to
quote from your other post to Carlton, which I totally agree with. It was
well said and worth repeating:
You said: "Certainly the two substantives have to refer to the same person,
but I
don't think the appositive ever really expresses the totality of the
noun to which it is in apposition. It sharpens the identification of the
person or thing or restates the identification of the person or thing in
a way that highlights a characteristic or attribute of the person or
thing that may not be obvious from the noun to which it is in
apposition. I don't think there is an attempt at an exhaustive
restatement of the person or thing. Certainly, as you ask above, there
is more to MOI than just being a sinner, but in his mind "the sinner" is
an apt appellation for himself. "The sinner" in this case identifies the
tax collector in a way that emphasizes that attribute or characteristic
that defines him best under the circumstances."

So, the pronoun serves to identify the referent, whether "me", or "you". The
additional noun phrase emphasizes an attribute or characteristic of the
referent that is relevant under the circumstances. In the case of Luke 18:13
it is the fact that this person acknowledges himself to be a sinful person,
one who has sinned against God.
The text gives no indication that the tax collector compares himself to a
Pharisee who stands far off. Jesus and Luke do that, and the Pharisee
compares himself to the tax collector. The tax collector is described as
looking down, repentant and talking to God without apparently being
concerned about his surroundings.
If you prefer to call the noun phrase TWi hAMARTWLWi an apposition to the
pronoun, I can accept that as long as we agree that it "emphasizes that
attribute or characteristic that defines him best". This sounds like
attributive use to me. From a descriptive linguistics frame of reference I
would prefer to call it a rankshifted verbless clause that modifies the head
noun slot, which in this case is filled by a pronoun.

I don't see a significant semantic difference between, say,
"you rich ones" and "you who are rich"
"you hypocrites" and "you who can be described as hypocrites"

"you twelve" I would take as an apposition rather than a rankshifted
verbless clause, but I am not sure whether I am influenced by the fact that
in Danish a straightforward apposition seems to work better here than a
rankshifted clause (you who are my 12 disciples).

What I am trying to say is that I see these constructions with a pronoun as
open to being appositions, but also open to be rankshifted clauses.

Where we seem to have different perspectives is in our philosophies of
translation, but I won't go more into these philosophies on this list. (See
the Bible translation list).

I do want to say two things, though:
1) If anyone insists that all these constructions MUST be translated with
English appositions and that a relative clause or the use of the indefinite
article in English or other languages are inaccurate translations, then I
disagree.

2) I am afraid anyone - I am not thinking of any person in particular - who
claim they can think about and describe Greek grammar without ever letting
their mothertongue grammar influence their thinking, are fooling themselves.

I admit that I am influenced by Danish and the other languages I have
studied. Like Sabaot, where almost all attribution is done by rankshifted
clauses. Or like Danish where no person would ever dream of saying "me, the
sinner" even in the most literal translation. It is simply impossible. The
literal translation from 1907 says "vær mig synder naadig" which in a
literal English is "be to me sinner merciful". It is understandable, but not
normal language. No Danish person would ever say that if they were not
quoting from a literal translation of the bible. It sounds awkward because
it is Greekish Danish, and I am sure much more awkward than the Greek would
have sounded to those who spoke Koine Greek. The latest Danish idiomatic
translation gives the sense of the Greek text in more natural language:
"Have mercy on me. I am a sinner." A half-century old idiomatic translation
says in my English rendering: "God, forgive in your grace such a sinner as I
am."

Thank you for the discussion,
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 - 15:37:13 EDT