From: Chuck Tripp (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 03 2002 - 12:39:09 EST
I responded Ward Power's email last night but mistakenly sent it to his
address directly, here is what I wrote which you might find has some
Commenting on the three following quotes:
> > > Question: How do the participles BAPTIZONTES and DIDASKONTES relate
> > > to the main verb MAQHTEUSATE from a strictly grammatical standpoint?
> > > No theology please, just grammar/syntax.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Kevin Cauley
> >At 09:15 PM 020301 -0700, lance w seevers wrote:
> >I would think that the present tense of BAPTIZONTES and DIDASKONTES
> >indicates action that is concurrent with that of the main verb
> >Walt Seevers
> Instead, I see it as sequential action, consequent to the main verb
> Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255
> 259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255
> PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: firstname.lastname@example.org
I was thinking about this after my earlier email. The meaning of the two
participle verbs can convey the idea of sequence. I was thinking for
example one could construct a sentence where the indicative verb is 'build
houses' and the two participles are 'laying foundations' and 'constructing
roofs.' It would go something like this: 'go into the world and build
houses, laying foundations and constructing roofs.' My greek is nowhere
good enough to construct this in greek (though I think I would throw in a
word like EPEITE to avoid ambiguity), but imagine this sentence in greek.
There would be an obvious sequence in the meaning to the two participles.
The sequence is not inherent to the syntax of the sentence i.e. indicative +
participle + participle but instead comes out of the meaning of the words.
My point is this: it is possible that to the first century hearers of this
sentence that there was an obvious sequence of BAPTIZONTES then DIDASKONTES
that was as clear as laying foundations and building roofs. The difficulty
is this discussion is that we are 20 centuries removed from that time. What
was intuitively obvious to them is less so to us. I am not saying that the
case can't be made one way or the other, but that one has to go beyond the
syntax of the sentence to come to a conclusion.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Cauley <email@example.com>
To: Biblical Greek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 8:56 PM
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Matthew 28:19,20
> Respectfully, could you please cite a grammar or some other grammatical
> authority that substantiates that viewpoint? (or even a clear example in
> another passage of the GNT would be good) I know of several grammars that
> say the action of the present participle takes place at the same time as
> action of the lead verb. I would be interested in studying a grammar that
> states that the action of present active plural participles can be
> subsequent to the main verb and then in a sequential manner.
> Not to be a smart aleck, but I (sincerely) thought that it was plural
> because it referred back to the fact of the main verb's being plural and
> that the participle simply had to agree to the main verb. I was not aware
> that the plurality of the participle itself could contain direct
> on how the participle is to be construed in its relationship to the main
> verb (whew). Could you elaborate a little further on how the participles
> being plural could imply sequential action (or did I miss something?)?
> BTW, I am honestly trying to ascertain the relationships without trying to
> put my or anyone else's theology in the mix. I am happy to examine all
> possible *grammatical* ways that this could be construed.
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 - 15:37:19 EDT