[b-greek] Re: Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi

From: Steven Lo Vullo (doulos@merr.com)
Date: Sun Dec 02 2001 - 15:10:46 EST


<x-flowed>

On Sunday, December 2, 2001, at 06:23 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> Although BAGD and L&N make a lexical sense distinction between this
> word as
> an adjective and as a noun, I see no compelling linguistic reason for
> doing
> so. Such a distinction is a reflection of the fact that German and
> English
> happen to have both an adjective "sinful" and a noun "sinner".
> It would be quite adequate to say that hAMARTWLOS is an adjective, full
> stop. Very often this adjective, like many other adjectives in Greek,
> and a
> few in English, is used with the head of the noun phrase implicit. Such
> an
> implicit head is either the generic semantic concept of "thing" or
> "person",
> or it may be supplied from the preceding context.
> There is no semantic difference between "a sinful person" and "a
> sinner".
> When hAMARTWLOS modifies an explicit noun, it is used in a way which is
> called adjectival. When the head noun is implied, it is used in a way
> which
> is called substantival.
> It is correct that this particular adjective is in the majority of cases
> used without an explicit noun to modify. This is because only people
> can be
> sinful. "A sinful one" is always "a sinful person"="a sinner".

Hi Iver:

Thanks for your comments, from which I always seem to learn.

I agree that there is not necessarily a semantic difference between "a
sinful person" and "a sinner" (although in certain contexts there could
be). My only point was that hAMARTWLOS, though an adjective, tends in
the NT to be used substantivally more than adjectivally. The only
significance this has for Luke 18.13 is that if there is some question
as to whether it is functioning appositionally or attributively, the
preponderance of usage (not isolated from other evidence, of course) may
help tip the scales. But it can only be a piece of a larger argument.

Just one aside. It's not exactly true that only people can be sinful.
After all, the law came in so that through the commandment sin itself
might become utterly sinful (hINA GENHTAI KAQ' hUPERBOLHN hAMARTWLOS hH
hAMARTIA DIA THS ENTOLHS). ;-)

> You have some nice examples here. In addition to the
> adjectival-substantival
> contrast, you now focus on an apposition-attributive contrast. I don't
> see
> the strong opposition between these two as you seem to imply.

I wouldn't say I necessarily see strong opposition between the two, but
I do see a distinction, and think that distinction may be relevant in
specific cases.

> I do want to say two things, though:
> 1) If anyone insists that all these constructions MUST be translated
> with
> English appositions and that a relative clause or the use of the
> indefinite
> article in English or other languages are inaccurate translations,
> then I
> disagree.

I would never insist that all cases of Greek apposition must be
translated with English apposition as opposed to a relative clause, just
that in certain semantic situations it may be preferable to do so.

> 2) I am afraid anyone - I am not thinking of any person in particular -
> who
> claim they can think about and describe Greek grammar without ever
> letting
> their mothertongue grammar influence their thinking, are fooling
> themselves.

Again, I agree. The best we can do is to continually strive to avoid
that influence.

Thanks for the input,

Steve Lo Vullo


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


</x-flowed>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:13 EDT