Page 1 of 2
1 John 2:6
Posted: August 10th, 2011, 8:09 pm
by David Lim
[1 John 2] [6] ο λεγων εν αυτω μενειν οφειλει καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν και αυτος ουτως περιπατειν
I found this sentence almost unreadable.. Here is my current understanding of it in "English": "the [one] who says [that] [he] remains in him ought to, just as that [one] walked, also walk in this way himself."
(1) I considered "εν αυτω μενειν" to be an indirect statement rather than an indirect discourse.
(2) I took "καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν" as a somewhat separate adverbial clause modifying "περιπατειν".
(3) I don't know why "και" is needed but I presumed it was just "also" rather than "and".
(4) "αυτος" seems to function as a reflexive pronoun used as an adverb..
(5) I took "ουτως" to be an emphatic referral to "καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν"
Are any of these incorrect?
Re: 1 John 2:6
Posted: August 10th, 2011, 10:23 pm
by Barry Hofstetter
David Lim wrote:[1 John 2] [6] ο λεγων εν αυτω μενειν οφειλει καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν και αυτος ουτως περιπατειν
I found this sentence almost unreadable.. Here is my current understanding of it in "English": "the [one] who says [that] [he] remains in him ought to, just as that [one] walked, also walk in this way himself."
(1) I considered "εν αυτω μενειν" to be an indirect statement rather than an indirect discourse.
(2) I took "καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν" as a somewhat separate adverbial clause modifying "περιπατειν".
(3) I don't know why "και" is needed but I presumed it was just "also" rather than "and".
(4) "αυτος" seems to function as a reflexive pronoun used as an adverb..
(5) I took "ουτως" to be an emphatic referral to "καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν"
Are any of these incorrect?
This gives me a headache – it seems that you are making something simple very complicated.
(1) I considered "εν αυτω μενειν" to be an indirect statement rather than an indirect discourse.
To me these two terms are precise synonyms – what do you see as the difference?
(3) I don't know why "και" is needed but I presumed it was just "also" rather than "and".
"Also" or "even," you could read it as either, I think.
(4) "αυτος" seems to function as a reflexive pronoun used as an adverb.
Not reflexive, but intensive, "he himself."
(5) I took "ουτως" to be an emphatic referral to "καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν"
Well, it correlates with καθώς, "just as...so." I'm not sure that "emphatic" is the right word. However, note that its inclusion is textually suspect.
Re: 1 John 2:6
Posted: August 11th, 2011, 1:56 am
by David Lim
Barry Hofstetter wrote:David Lim wrote:[1 John 2] [6] ο λεγων εν αυτω μενειν οφειλει καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν και αυτος ουτως περιπατειν
I found this sentence almost unreadable.. Here is my current understanding of it in "English": "the [one] who says [that] [he] remains in him ought to, just as that [one] walked, also walk in this way himself."
(1) I considered "εν αυτω μενειν" to be an indirect statement rather than an indirect discourse.
(2) I took "καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν" as a somewhat separate adverbial clause modifying "περιπατειν".
(3) I don't know why "και" is needed but I presumed it was just "also" rather than "and".
(4) "αυτος" seems to function as a reflexive pronoun used as an adverb..
(5) I took "ουτως" to be an emphatic referral to "καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν"
Are any of these incorrect?
This gives me a headache – it seems that you are making something simple very complicated.
(1) I considered "εν αυτω μενειν" to be an indirect statement rather than an indirect discourse.
To me these two terms are precise synonyms – what do you see as the difference?
I remember someone in another recent thread told me that they were different, and when I checked I did think an indirect discourse is specifically for reporting events, where the tense of the infinitive corresponds to time relative to the event, whereas an indirect statement does not have the same temporal connotations.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:(3) I don't know why "και" is needed but I presumed it was just "also" rather than "and".
"Also" or "even," you could read it as either, I think.
(4) "αυτος" seems to function as a reflexive pronoun used as an adverb.
Not reflexive, but intensive, "he himself."
(5) I took "ουτως" to be an emphatic referral to "καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν"
Well, it correlates with καθώς, "just as...so." I'm not sure that "emphatic" is the right word. However, note that its inclusion is textually suspect.
My questions were because it seemed as if the author could simply say "ο λεγων εν αυτω μενειν οφειλει καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν περιπατειν" to get his meaning across, so I was wondering what nuance each of the additional words gave. I think your answers confirm what I thought, thanks!
Re: 1 John 2:6
Posted: August 11th, 2011, 8:33 am
by Stephen Carlson
David Lim wrote:I remember someone in another recent thread told me that they were different, and when I checked I did think an indirect discourse is specifically for reporting events, where the tense of the infinitive corresponds to time relative to the event, whereas an indirect statement does not have the same temporal connotations.
My understanding is that an indirect statement is one type of indirect discourse. (Other types are indirect commands and indirect questions.)
David Lim wrote:My questions were because it seemed as if the author could simply say "ο λεγων εν αυτω μενειν οφειλει καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν περιπατειν" to get his meaning across, so I was wondering what nuance each of the additional words gave. I think your answers confirm what I thought, thanks!
The nuance has to be found in pragmatics, or what Steve Runge calls "discourse grammar." It looks like we have two cases of "left-dislocation," whose function is to announce a new topic, and in this case we have two of them: (1) ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν, resumed by αὐτός, and (2) καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν, resumed by οὕτως.
Runge notes that, although English permits left-dislocation too, it tends to come across however as fairly unsophisticated and so the translator ought to consider other means of topicalization. One way, for example, is to use a rhetorical question: "Remember how Jesus walked? Well, that's how the one who claims to abide in him too should walk."
Stephen
Re: 1 John 2:6
Posted: August 11th, 2011, 9:37 pm
by David Lim
sccarlson wrote:David Lim wrote:I remember someone in another recent thread told me that they were different, and when I checked I did think an indirect discourse is specifically for reporting events, where the tense of the infinitive corresponds to time relative to the event, whereas an indirect statement does not have the same temporal connotations.
My understanding is that an indirect statement is one type of indirect discourse. (Other types are indirect commands and indirect questions.)
I see. What do you call the indirect discourse for reported events?
sccarlson wrote:David Lim wrote:My questions were because it seemed as if the author could simply say "ο λεγων εν αυτω μενειν οφειλει καθως εκεινος περιεπατησεν περιπατειν" to get his meaning across, so I was wondering what nuance each of the additional words gave. I think your answers confirm what I thought, thanks!
The nuance has to be found in pragmatics, or what Steve Runge calls "discourse grammar." It looks like we have two cases of "left-dislocation," whose function is to announce a new topic, and in this case we have two of them: (1) ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν, resumed by αὐτός, and (2) καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν, resumed by οὕτως.
Runge notes that, although English permits left-dislocation too, it tends to come across however as fairly unsophisticated and so the translator ought to consider other means of topicalization. One way, for example, is to use a rhetorical question: "Remember how Jesus walked? Well, that's how the one who claims to abide in him too should walk."
Ah I see. Thanks!
Re: 1 John 2:6
Posted: August 12th, 2011, 12:19 am
by Stephen Carlson
David Lim wrote:sccarlson wrote:David Lim wrote:I remember someone in another recent thread told me that they were different, and when I checked I did think an indirect discourse is specifically for reporting events, where the tense of the infinitive corresponds to time relative to the event, whereas an indirect statement does not have the same temporal connotations.
My understanding is that an indirect statement is one type of indirect discourse. (Other types are indirect commands and indirect questions.)
I see. What do you call the indirect discourse for reported events?
It's not clear to me what you're driving at. What grammar are you using? Maybe I can see what they are doing there.
Stephen
Re: 1 John 2:6
Posted: August 12th, 2011, 5:46 am
by David Lim
sccarlson wrote:David Lim wrote:sccarlson wrote:My understanding is that an indirect statement is one type of indirect discourse. (Other types are indirect commands and indirect questions.)
I see. What do you call the indirect discourse for reported events?
It's not clear to me what you're driving at. What grammar are you using? Maybe I can see what they are doing there.
The second paragraph at
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-57.html says "As a
verbal noun, it has tense (present, aorist, perfect, and occasionally future), i.e. aspect (§0309), but not time (except in indirect discourse where it represents a finite verb)". So I assumed that by "indirect discourse" it was referring to reported events.
Re: 1 John 2:6
Posted: August 12th, 2011, 8:49 am
by Stephen Carlson
David Lim wrote:The second paragraph at
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-57.html says "As a
verbal noun, it has tense (present, aorist, perfect, and occasionally future), i.e. aspect (§0309), but not time (except in indirect discourse where it represents a finite verb)". So I assumed that by "indirect discourse" it was referring to reported events.
It's your focus on "reported events" that I'm curious about.
Stephen
Re: 1 John 2:6
Posted: August 13th, 2011, 5:51 am
by David Lim
sccarlson wrote:David Lim wrote:The second paragraph at
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-57.html says "As a
verbal noun, it has tense (present, aorist, perfect, and occasionally future), i.e. aspect (§0309), but not time (except in indirect discourse where it represents a finite verb)". So I assumed that by "indirect discourse" it was referring to reported events.
It's your focus on "reported events" that I'm curious about.
I think I don't understand your terminology. Besides reported speech or thoughts or feelings, what other kinds of indirect discourse are there? Do you agree that the infinitive in an indirect discourse conveys relative time within the scope of the discourse? What do you mean by "indirect commands and indirect questions"?
Re: 1 John 2:6
Posted: August 13th, 2011, 11:58 am
by Stephen Carlson
David Lim wrote:I think I don't understand your terminology. Besides reported speech or thoughts or feelings, what other kinds of indirect discourse are there? Do you agree that the infinitive in an indirect discourse conveys relative time within the scope of the discourse? What do you mean by "indirect commands and indirect questions"?
Indirect discourse is the reporting of speech in a dependent (or infinitival) clause. The speech reported could be a statement, command, question, etc.
As a result, it was confusing to me when you said
I considered "εν αυτω μενειν" to be an indirect statement rather than an indirect discourse.
That's like saying that you considered someone's pet to be a cat rather than a mammal.
When pressed to explain, you then said:
I remember someone in another recent thread told me that they were different, when I checked I did think an indirect discourse is specifically for reporting events, where the tense of the infinitive corresponds to time relative to the event, whereas an indirect statement does not have the same temporal connotations.
This raised my curiosity as to what you checked so I could understand better what you're driving at, and all I got was a link to Funk that did not mention anything about "specifically for reporting events."
I am concerned that my previous attempts to explain have only confused matters more, and, rather than get side-tracked, I'd really like to get back to the source of your distinction between indirect statements and indirect discourse. So I renew my question:
What grammar are you using?
Stephen