[B-Greek] Adverbs
Sarah Madden
sarah.r.madden at gmail.com
Wed Mar 30 04:24:39 EDT 2011
Carl --
When you wrote the following, didn't you intend to say "verb" instead of
"noun" in reference to the categories an adverb can modify?
Here's what you wrote::
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.
--
Sarah ><>
sarah.r.madden at gmail.com
work: 301.429.8189
================================
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, 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)
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list