Attribution and Epexegesis
Posted: March 9th, 2023, 3:14 pm
I haven’t yet found this discussed on this board, but I’m wondering why Wallace keeps two categories (appositional and epexegetical) separate throughout his book except in the genitive case, where he combines them in the genitive of apposition. I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen that he explains why this should be the case. I would appreciate hearing others about this.
To be specific, when reading Wallace on appositional vs epexegetical throughout his book:
p. 460 he notes about the infinitive that: “Many examples... could be treated either as appositional or epexegetical (although the appositional use is more common than epexegetical).”
Gary D. Collier
To be specific, when reading Wallace on appositional vs epexegetical throughout his book:
- He talks about both as separate categories throughout his grammar for numerous applications of the language: Nominatives, datives, accusatives, infinitives, and with ὁτι or ἱνα (see Wallace 48, 62, 70f, 152; 198, 458f, 460, 475f, 600, 606f).
- Yet, only for the genitive case, does he combine the two together and call them: “Genitive of Apposition (Epexegetical Genitive, Genitive of Definition).”
- Appositional (namely, that is to say—defining or clarifying the previous statement); or
- Epexegetical (to the effect that—explaining, clarifying, or completing the previous statement.)
p. 460 he notes about the infinitive that: “Many examples... could be treated either as appositional or epexegetical (although the appositional use is more common than epexegetical).”
Gary D. Collier