From: Moon-Ryul Jung (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 17 2002 - 18:31:29 EST
> > hH GAR SWMATIKH GUMNASIA PROS OLIGON ESTIN WFELIMOS...
> H DE EUSEBEIA PROS PANTA WFELIMOS ESTIN
> If we think of the function of GAR as a linking word that picks up a word or
> phrase from the preceding context and further develops or explains the
> concept, then I don't see a problem.
As my previous post indicates, I have no problem with 4.8 even though I
think here that GAR connects the whole 4.8 to 4.7b. You said this about
GAR previously. If the GAR clause explains what was stated in the previous
sentence, we should say that the GAR clause "deveops or explains the idea
the whole sentence". Quite a long time ago, we talked about what the
negative particle OU negates. You said OU negates a particular constituent
sentence. I said that OU negates the "focused proposition", the
proposition that focuses a particular constituent. You eventually agreed
because we were talking about the same thing. How about GAR?
Shouldn't GAR also develops or explains the focused proposition of the
sentence? For a proposition always has the focus.
Moon R. Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
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 - 15:37:21 EDT