Diachronic context of nom. participle with finite verbs
Posted: April 29th, 2016, 12:31 am
Is anybody interested in discussing further and sharing their thoughts, theories, understandings or perplexities - or quotes from others - in dealing with the syntactic construction of the nominative participle together with a finite verb. We could discuss its use in auxilliary verbs, proverbs, commands (dialogue) and narrative. Not only dealing with the historical sequence from historical narrative to Modern adverbal / adjectival usage, but also whether theories and understandings of the participle proposed for New Testament readers fit into the context of the diachronic continuum or whether they are there for other reasons. We could look at the question of text-type (genre) in identifying and contextualising various usages. In this topic, the distinction between beginner and expert is blurred. That is because it is so little understood.
The ubiquity of their use makes it difficult to ignore (or avoid grappling with) them, but they are something that most (all) of us handle by translation or analogy. It is in our Koine period that they seem to take on their richest usage, and at the end of our period that they cease to be used, so there is both change and development to be considered within the continuity.
To appreciate their usage, we need to go beyond the blunt categories of adverb, adjective and verb, and use more specialised definitions. That will require tollerance on the part of those who feel out of their depth in dealing with jargon, and patience for those reading the words that others use to categorise things, that may be different from their own. I think that this discussion will be more like brainstorming ideas, rather than experts bringing answers to the table, and that requires the respect for others that sharing ideas in vulnerable situations usually entails. In this discussion, we need to embrace an egalitarian spirit, recognising our mutual ignorance, and the value that everyone can bring to our understanding. The usual power structures of knowledge will hold little validity as we explore what we believe, what we have been told, what has worked in what context, and we cooperate to make even a little sense of this topic. This is a time for questioning ourselves and others, and for facing the dark void of our ignorance.
Enough of the preamble. Is anybody interested?
The ubiquity of their use makes it difficult to ignore (or avoid grappling with) them, but they are something that most (all) of us handle by translation or analogy. It is in our Koine period that they seem to take on their richest usage, and at the end of our period that they cease to be used, so there is both change and development to be considered within the continuity.
To appreciate their usage, we need to go beyond the blunt categories of adverb, adjective and verb, and use more specialised definitions. That will require tollerance on the part of those who feel out of their depth in dealing with jargon, and patience for those reading the words that others use to categorise things, that may be different from their own. I think that this discussion will be more like brainstorming ideas, rather than experts bringing answers to the table, and that requires the respect for others that sharing ideas in vulnerable situations usually entails. In this discussion, we need to embrace an egalitarian spirit, recognising our mutual ignorance, and the value that everyone can bring to our understanding. The usual power structures of knowledge will hold little validity as we explore what we believe, what we have been told, what has worked in what context, and we cooperate to make even a little sense of this topic. This is a time for questioning ourselves and others, and for facing the dark void of our ignorance.
Enough of the preamble. Is anybody interested?