[b-greek] Re: Mark 6:22

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 31 2001 - 20:29:47 EST


At 7:58 PM -0500 12/31/01, Richard Ghilardi wrote:
>Dear b-greekers,
>
>>MK 6:22 -- EISELQOUSHS THS QUGATROS AUTHS [AUTOU] hHRWiDIADOS KAI
>>ORCHSAMENHS HRESEN TWi hHRWiDHi...
>
>[Ghilardi]
>
>I would render it thus:
>>
>>"When the very daughter of Herodias entered..."
>
>[Conrad]
>
>The way I read this version of yours, "very" refers to daughter, not to
>the
>entire phrase; and it looks to me like you're really taking AUTHS as
>intensive referring to QUGATROS alone, NOT to the entire phrase; that is:
>AUTHS refers to THS QUGATROS and intensifies it, while THS hHRWiDIADOS is
>simply a possessive genitive depending upon QUGATROS.
>
>[Ghilardi]
>
>I admit that I don't know how to English the Greek very well but that
>doesn't nullify my analysis of how AUTHS functions in this phrase.

I would think that if you have a valid understanding of how the AUTHS
functions to govern the entire genitive sequence and not just one part of
it, you ought to be able to find a way to express it in English. I think
that's part of my problem; I just can't understand how a pronoun
intensifying the entire genitive string is supposed to work with it to
yield an intelligible meaning--and if the meaning is intelligible it ought
to be expressible in another tongue.

>[Conrad]
>
>I used that phrase ( difficile per difficilius ) because it seemed to me
>unlikely that AUTHS would follow THS QUGATROS rather than precede THS
>hHRWiDIADOS.
>
>[Ghilardi]
>
>In fact, it does BOTH. AUTHS both follows THS QUGATROS and precedes THS
>hHRWiDIADOS. Where better could Mark have placed this pronoun if he had
>wanted to qualify the entire phrase?
>
>[Conrad]
>
>I still don't see how AUTHS can function to govern the entire phrase THS
>QUGATROS THS hHRWIDIADOS, even by virue of it's placement between THS
>QUGATROS and THS hHRWiDIADOS. To me personally that seems not only
>difficilius but difficillimum.
>
>[Ghilardi]
>
>Are you saying that Greek is incapable of using an intensive pronoun like
>AUTHS to qualify an entire phrase consisting of a head noun and a genitve
>adjunct?

The only construction of that sort I've ever seen is in Plato, where an
AUTO TOUTO is followed by a TO that substantivizes a phrase or even a
clause that follows. I've never seen anything comparable to this
construction wherein you assert that AUTHS governs NOT just the preceding
NOR just the following nominal.

>Previously I wrote:
>
>>I don't know why, Carl, we so often misunderstand each other. I'm not
>>naive enough to think it's wholly due to the nature of the medium.
>
>[Conrad]
>
>I'm not sure what we mean by this, but I will confess that I was
>altogether confounded by your notion of a "third alternative" and still
>don't understand it.
>
>[Ghilardi]
>
>Even my attempt to analyze our misunderstanding is misunderstood! :-)
>I'm sorry that I have not been able to express myself more clearly to you
>about the function of AUTHS in Mk 6:22. I don't know what I can do about
>that. As for my remark about "the nature of the medium", I was referring
>to e-mail. I think it's difficult (maybe even difficillimum) to
>communicate by e-mail without misunderstanding creeping in at some point.
>But I don't think that e-mail communication is wholly to blame. I'd chalk
>up a good part of it to my fallen human nature.

Oh, I wondered if you were chalking it up to MY obtuseness; I don't
hesitate to confess to that or to a fallen nature as well. But in this
instance I just don't find the construction you are arguing for to be a
credible one. I quite agree that e-mail communication often doesn't work,
but when that happens it's more often because correspondents are
approaching a question from irreconcilable perspectives or don't understand
the terminology being used by the other.

>[Conrad]
>
>Perhaps this is a matter we'd best simply agree to disagree about.
>
>[Ghilardi]
>
>Yet another one, eh? But I do so love having the last word. ;-)

You can have the last word, so far as I'm concerned. I may well be wrong
about this, but I just don't want to be misunderstood as asserting anything
other than what I really mean.
--

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
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 - 15:37:15 EDT