From: Moon-Ryul Jung (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 25 2002 - 03:01:35 EST
> on 3/24/02 5:54 PM, Moon-Ryul Jung at email@example.com wrote:
> >>> Rom 8.23: OU MONON DE, ALLA\ KAI AUTOI THN APARCHN TOU PNEUMATOS ECONTES,
> >>> hHMEIS KAI AUTOI EN hEAUTOIS STENAZOMEN hUIOQESIAN APEKDECOMENOI, THN
> >>> APOLUTRWSIN TOU SWMATOS hHMWN.
> >>> It seems that KAI AUTOI are emphatic, being repeated later in the sentence.
> >>> My trouble is in understanding ECONTES. Is it adjectival, qualifying AUTOI
> >>> (or implied hHMEIS, which is explicit later in the sentence)? Or is it
> >>> adverbial, modifying STENAZOMEN? Or does it have a function that I have
> >>> overlooked?
> >>> ============
> >>> Steven Lo Vullo
> >>> Madison, WI
> >>> firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> ECONTES works as an adversative participle in this case (= although we
> >> have).
> > It seems that this interpretation is more specific than does the text
> > allows.
> > Steve's question should be clarified. What do you, Steve, mean by
> > "qualifying
> > AUTOI"? Most translations have "also ourselves, who have the first fruit
> > of
> > Spirit, ...". Here, "which have the first fruit of Spirit" does describe
> > "ourselves", though not restrict what constitute "us" ["we" is already
> > known in the context of the letter.]. I think this translation is good
> > enough,
> > with some ambiguity in terms of the logical relationship between ECONTES
> > clause the main clause. But I am not sure which category (adjectival or
> > adverbial) it belongs.
> Hi Moon:
> What I was basically driving at was whether ECONTES should be construed with
> STENAZOMEN or with its subject. The reason for my inquiry is that, if we
> take ECONTES as an adverbial modifier of STENAZOMEN, it opens up some
> additional semantic options, such as what Manolis refers to as "adversative"
> (which I would call "concessive") or, as I think Carl understands it,
> causal. These senses are, of course, not native to the participle itself,
> but must be discerned from the context.
Becaue AUTOI need nFrom the viewpoint of language processing, i.e. hearing
words from left to right, I would interpret the sentence as follows:
Also ourselves - we have the first fruit of the spirit -
Also we ourselves groan within oursevles.
So, I would like to construe the participial clause with the subject.
The participial clause does not help determine the referent of AUTOI,
because the referent is already determined, but it describes the referent
further. Is there anything that prohibit my reading? Even if we construe
the participial clause with the subject, we still can talk about
the causal or concessive relationship between the participial clause
and the main verb ("groan"). But my point is: why should we
construe the participial clause with the main verb? Is there any
Moon R. Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
> Steven Lo Vullo
> Madison, WI
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 - 15:37:22 EDT