[B-Greek] Adverbs

Sarah Madden sarah.r.madden at gmail.com
Wed Mar 30 08:01:14 EDT 2011


Hi, Carl --
You're quite welcome.

I sent my note offlist to you just in case I myself misunderstood what you
had written. And, BTW, if you are indeed a "dead" grammarian, you certainly
have ME fooled! Have a great day -- I always love to read your posts but
usually I'm just lurking.



-- 
Sarah ><>
sarah.r.madden at gmail.com
work: 301.429.8189


On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 4:24 AM, Sarah Madden wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Jawohl! Genau so. Yes. And thanks for watching out for a doddering old dead
> grammarian!
>
> Carl
>
> > ================================
> >
> > 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
> >>
> > ---
> > 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
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
>



More information about the B-Greek mailing list