[B-Greek] Adverbs
=)
p1234567891 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 29 01:26:03 EDT 2011
Dear all,
Yes I certainly agree that it is impossible to understand the Greek text
through its English translation, but I am of the opinion that it is possible
to understand the grammatical construction apart from the actual meaning by
grouping the clauses, so I didn't mean to say that it was the English words
that modify each other, but rather that the grammatical function was
equivalent. So I could do it entirely in Greek but since English is my first
language I do think in English, although I understand the English words to
be simply placeholders for the Greek...
Anyway, can I confirm some of the examples?
[John 6:62] "... anabainonta opou hn to proteron"
I understand it to mean that "pou hn to proteron" = "[he] was previously
somewhere" (did I use "pou" correctly?) and therefore "ton uion tou
anqrwpou" is described as "anabainonta X" where X is "opou hn to proteron"
[1 Cor 15:46] "all ou prwton to pneumatikon alla to yucikon epeita to
pneumatikon"
Am I right to say that you understand it to imply "ou estin/ginetai prwton
to pneumatikon" and "epeita estin/ginetai to pneumatikon"? I also think so,
based on the parallel, but how would one know that it does not mean "to
pneumatikon ou estin to prwton"?
[2 Pet 1:20] "touto prwton ginwskontes ..."
So it means first "touto ginwskontes" before anything else? Rather than
"ginwskontes prwton touto ... epeita ekeino ..."?
As for the adjectives, are "euriskei outos prwtos" and "prwton euriskei
outos" equivalent then?
Thanks!
David Lim
On 28 March 2011 21:38, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:
> For three days (biblical accounting) this message has lain unanswered in my
> inbox. Perhaps my own tentative response will stir the dust a bit and
> evoke some alternative views on the question. General questions like this
> tend to simmer or fester or whatever a while before being taken off the
> burner or treated or whatever. It's different with specific texts about
> which specific questions are raised: everybody knows what he/she
> thinks about the question -- almost without thinking at all!
>
> On Mar 26, 2011, at 2:43 AM, =) <p1234567891 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Can I ask if there is any way to tell what an adverb modifies? It seems
> to
> > me that it can modify one or more of:
> > a complete clause, a verb clause, another adverb (including adjectival or
> > prepositional or dative clause), and even a noun clause.
>
> The dead grammarians (myself included?) used to say (as I still do) that
> an adverb can and does modify an adjective, a noun, or another adverb --
> or any phrase or clause that functions adjectivally, nominally, or
> adverbially. One live grammarian I know likes to speak -- and I think
> he's right -- of adverbs functioning as sentence modifiers.
>
> > If so, how do I differentiate between the various possibilities when the
> > adverb can be used in more than one way?
> > Or is my concept of adverbs inaccurate?
> > For example I wanted to classify the following:
> >
> > "prwteron" = "firstly / initially" (adv.) / "former" (adj.)
> > "prwton" = "first" (adv.) / "first" (adj.)
> > "prwtos" = "first / foremost" (adj.) / "first" (adv.)
>
> I might add TO PRWTON, perhaps even TA PRWTA to
> that list.
>
> But then, I would quickly go on (before somebody beats me to it
> (you know who you are!):
>
> (1) whether any of the forms you have listed functions
> adverbially can be answered only when it appears within a
> context. They don't function at all adverbially or adjectivally
> in isolation from a context.
>
> (2) I personally would not consider how to English any
> particular word or expression until I have understood it
> in its Greek context; that's why I tend to think that glossaries
> are of little real help.
>
> > So I considered these to have the following meanings:
> >
> > [John 6:62] "ean oun qewrhte ton uion tou anqrwpou anabainonta opou hn to
> > proteron"
> > = "therefore { if { you behold { the son ( of man ) ( going up ( where {
> > [he] was ( initially ) } ) ) } } ? }"
> > (where "initially" modifies the verb "[he] was")
>
> I'd be more inclined to say that TO PROTERON as an adverbial phrase
> modifies the whole adverbial clause hOPOU HN, but you could perhaps
> as well say it modifies simply HN. Of course hOPOU HN TO PROTERON
> is a relative adverbial clause modifying an implicit EKEI.
>
> > [Heb 7:27] "... proteron uper twn idiwn amartiwn qusias anaferein epeita
> twn
> > tou laou ..."
> > = "... to offer up { sacrifices } ( firstly ) ( for ( [their] ) ( own )
> > sins ) ( subsequently ) ( [for] the [sins] ( of the people ) ) ..."
> > (where "firstly" modifies the adverbial prepositional clause "for [their]
> > own sins" and also "subsequently" similarly)
>
> I'd take PROTERON to modify hUPER TWIN IDIWN hAMARTIWN
> and EPEITA to modify (hUPER) TWN TOU LAOU (hAMARTIWN).
>
> > [Rom 1:16] "... dunamis gar qeou estin eis swthrian panti tw pisteuonti
> > ioudaiw te prwton kai ellhni"
> > = "... for { [it] is { power ( of God ) ( for salvation ) } ( to ( all )
> > the [ones] ( who believe ) ) ( both ( to Jew ) ( first ) and ( to Greek )
> )
> > }"
> > (where "first" modifies the adverbial dative clause "to Jew")
>
> Yes. But again, it seems to me you're putting the cart before the
> horse, talking about what the English translated word modifies. I'd
> prefer to talk wholly in terms of the Greek.
>
> > But I do not quite understand the following:
> >
> > [Rom 1:8] "prwton men eucaristw tw qew mou dia ihsou cristou uper pantwn
> > umwn ..."
> > ?= "( first ) ( indeed ) I thank { ( my ) God } ( through Jesus Christ )
> (
> > for you ( all ) ) ..."
> > (where "first" and "indeed" both modify the complete clause "I thank my
> God
> > ...")
>
> I'd understand PRWTON here as governing everything from verse 8 through
> verse 12. Verse 13 with its DE answers the PRWTON MEN of verse 8.
> And here I'd say that PRWTON governs the whole sequence. It could be
> Englished, "First of all ... " or "In the first place ... " or "(1) ... "
>
> > [1 Cor 15:46] "all ou prwton to pneumatikon alla to yucikon epeita to
> > pneumatikon"
> > ?= "but { [it] [is] not ( first ) { the spiritual } but { the soulish } }
> {
> > [it] [is] ( subsequently ) { the spiritual } }"
> > (where "first" modifies "[it] [is]")
> > ?= "but { { first } [is] not { the spiritual } but { the soulish } } (
> > subsequently ) [it] [is] { the spiritual }"
> > (where "first" is an adjective)
>
> There's a problem here of ellipsis. I'd say that OU PRWTON probably
> modifies an understood GINETAI or EGENETO, and that EPEITA
> works the same way.
>
> I must say, this whole business of word-for-word translation is
> disturbing. As your initial question seems to indicate, you do readily
> understand that words do not signify by themselves but only in a
> context. First understand the Greek words as a sequential unit; if
> you want to translate, wait until after you clearly understand what
> the Greek says. Translation, I submit, is NOT a method of coming
> to understand what the Greek says.
>
>
> > [2 Pet 1:20] "touto prwton ginwskontes oti pasa profhteia grafhs idias
> > epilusews ou ginetai"
> > ?= "knowing { this } ( first ) { that { { ( every ) prophecy } does not
> > come to be ( of ( [one's] ) ( own ) explanation ) } }"
> > (where "first" modifies "knowing")
> > ?= "knowing { ( first ) this } { that { { ( every ) prophecy } does not
> > come to be ( of ( [one's] ) ( own ) explanation ) } }"
> > (where "first" modifies "this")
>
> Here again, I really think that adding these English glosses only
> obfuscates the problem under consideration.
>
> I'd think that PRWTON governs TOUTO (words like this and MONON
> that restrict the preceding word often are used postpositively), but
> it could perhaps as well or better be said that MONON governs the
> whole participial phrase, TOUTO GINWSKONTES.
>
> > And I cannot figure out what "prwtos" means when it is declined as an
> > adjective but used as an adverb...
> >
> > [John 1:41] "euriskei outos prwtos ton adelfon ton idion simwna ..."
> > ?= "{ this [one] ( first ) } finds { ( [his] ) ( own ) brother } { Simon
> }
> > ..."
> > (it does not mean "this first [one]", does it?)
> > (but what then is the difference between "euriskei outos prwtos" and
> "prwton
> > euriskei outos"?)
>
> No, it doesn't mean "this first one." It means "he finds, before doing
> anything else"
> This is an idiomatic way that ordinal adjectives work in Greek -- one must
> get
> used to it; they agree with the subject but function like adverbs. For
> example,
> hOUTOS ESCATOS HLQEN = "He got there last" or "He was the last one
> to arrive." When you've read enough Greek, you won't ask questions like
> this;
> you will see this sort of thing over and over.
>
> > [Luke 2:2] "auth h apografh prwth egeneto hgemoneuontos ths surias
> kurhniou"
> > ?= "{ this enrollment ( first ) } came to be ( when { { Cyrenius }
> governed
> > { Syria } } )"
> > (if it means "this first enrollment", as ASV interprets it, why is John
> 1:41
> > interpreted differently?)
> >
> > Is the difference between "prwton" as an adverb and "prwtos" declined as
> an
> > adjective not semantic but purely grammatical?
>
> This PRWTH has commonly been understood as an adverbial usage construed
> with EGENETO, "This registration first took place when Qurinius was
> governing Syria ... " That would be another instance of the adverbial usage
> of an ordinal adjective.
>
> HOWEVER, this particular verse was the subect of a now celebrated blog
> entry by list-member Stephen Carlson, an eminent lawyer who is now teaching
> beginning Greek at Duke. Stephen has understood this verse in a different
> way and probably should, when he can find the time, either give the URL of
> his blog entry from two or three years back or briefly outline his
> understanding
> of this text. It is a very problematic text, and the URL of his blog entry
> would
> probably be very helpful. I don't have it ready to hand.
>
> One last thing (is that an adverb?): I would seriously urge you to drop the
> whole procedure of interposing English glosses between the Greek text under
> consideration and your effort to analyze the construction. The construction
> should be analyzed in the Greek text first; Englishing it can only make
> sense
> after the Greek text has come to make good sense to you.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list