Theoretical Nature of Prepositional Phrases

Re: Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου

Postby David Lim » August 10th, 2012, 4:27 am

MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:But as I said it depends on which formal system we think underlies natural language


No formal system doesn't underlie natural language.


Intrinsically it does, and we build it up when we learn a language, which is why we are able to tell whether something is grammatical or not, because we essentially check it against a formal system, consciously or not. There are three main alternatives concerning prepositional phrases:
(1) Prepositional phrases are intrinsically adverbial, and adverbs can be "put in an adjectival box" when wanted to function adjectivally. This is my view, which explains why a lot of adverbs can be "made like" nouns by the article as I said above, whereas on the other hand there is no generic way to "make" adjectives function as adverbs without using conjunctions or adverbs. Since prepositional phrases modify verbs directly in the same manner as normal adverbs, it is not a far stretch to suppose that they are equivalent to adverbs. Then it follows that, when preceded by the article, a copulative verb is implicit. Whether the prepositional phrase is inside an "adjective-box" that is the predicate nominative of the copulative verb is not a crucial matter. Another possibility with the same external observable structure is that the prepositional phrase adverbially modifies the implied copulative verb.
(2) Prepositional phrases are intrinsically neither adverbial nor adjectival. They are definitely adjectival when preceded by the article, but could be either when anarthous. I presume this is what Stephen is suggesting. However so far we have not seen evidence of any anarthous prepositional phrase that is unambiguously adjectival. And for Rom 5:15 in particular the context together with the parallel structures imply that the prepositional phrase is indeed adverbial.
(3) Prepositional phrases have no intrinsic grammatical function but only function correctly within the correct context. I would say that this is true only for idiomatic expressions, which are not restricted to prepositional phrases anyway.
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου

Postby MAubrey » August 10th, 2012, 10:00 am

David Lim wrote:Intrinsically it does, and we build it up when we learn a language, which is why we are able to tell whether something is grammatical or not, because we essentially check it against a formal system, consciously or not. There are three main alternatives concerning prepositional phrases:


No, David. You're wrong, very wrong. There is no necessary need for the system of language to be a formal one. Language is a system, but it is a neural metaphorical system and emerges (in the sense of emergence theory) from the inter-working of other basic cognitive systems of the brain (motor, visual, etc.). Any formal construct is of our own making with little or no relationship to the nature of the linguistic system itself.

David Lim wrote:(1) Prepositional phrases are intrinsically adverbial, and adverbs can be "put in an adjectival box" when wanted to function adjectivally. This is my view, which explains why a lot of adverbs can be "made like" nouns by the article as I said above, whereas on the other hand there is no generic way to "make" adjectives function as adverbs without using conjunctions or adverbs. Since prepositional phrases modify verbs directly in the same manner as normal adverbs, it is not a far stretch to suppose that they are equivalent to adverbs. Then it follows that, when preceded by the article, a copulative verb is implicit. Whether the prepositional phrase is inside an "adjective-box" that is the predicate nominative of the copulative verb is not a crucial matter. Another possibility with the same external observable structure is that the prepositional phrase adverbially modifies the implied copulative verb.
(2) Prepositional phrases are intrinsically neither adverbial nor adjectival. They are definitely adjectival when preceded by the article, but could be either when anarthous. I presume this is what Stephen is suggesting. However so far we have not seen evidence of any anarthous prepositional phrase that is unambiguously adjectival. And for Rom 5:15 in particular the context together with the parallel structures imply that the prepositional phrase is indeed adverbial.
(3) Prepositional phrases have no intrinsic grammatical function but only function correctly within the correct context. I would say that this is true only for idiomatic expressions, which are not restricted to prepositional phrases anyway.


Your "three alternatives" are nonsense.
Mike Aubrey
Canada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School
MAubrey
 
Posts: 634
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Theoretical Nature of Prepositional Phrases

Postby Stephen Carlson » August 10th, 2012, 10:38 am

Mod note: I split the topic so that this discussion on prepositional phrases gets its own thread.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου

Postby cwconrad » August 10th, 2012, 10:51 am

David Lim wrote: ... there is no generic way to "make" adjectives function as adverbs without using conjunctions or adverbs. ... .


Unless I wholly misunderstand what you're talking about, this is patently false.While you might claim that applying the suffix -ως to an adjectival stem is an instance of "using an adverb" (-ως =the "ly", i.e. "like" used to form adverbs from English adjectives), yet Greek can use the neuter singular or plural accusative of an adjective adverbially, for the simple reason that the accusative is an adverbial case par excellence. Cf. Smyth §§1606-1611.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
… ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸν οἶνον ἠξίους
πίνειν, συνεκποτέ’ ἐστί σοι καὶ τὴν τρύγα Aristophanes, Plutus 1085
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου

Postby David Lim » August 10th, 2012, 11:54 am

cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote: ... there is no generic way to "make" adjectives function as adverbs without using conjunctions or adverbs. ... .


Unless I wholly misunderstand what you're talking about, this is patently false.While you might claim that applying the suffix -ως to an adjectival stem is an instance of "using an adverb" (-ως =the "ly", i.e. "like" used to form adverbs from English adjectives), yet Greek can use the neuter singular or plural accusative of an adjective adverbially, for the simple reason that the accusative is an adverbial case par excellence. Cf. Smyth §§1606-1611.


I meant that it does not function in exactly the same way. The reason is that the resulting semantic domain of the adverbial usage of the accusative is not always directly derived from the meaning of the adjective. Also, it is not just adjectives that fall under what you mention. "τελος" and "την αρχην" are examples of nouns used this way, that Smyth also mentions. The point I am making is that they do not in themselves function adverbially, but rather that in general they have to be individually learnt separate from their original meaning; there is a strong but not systematically predictable relationship. And "την αρχην", being feminine, also shows that it does not fall to the neuter for this supposed way of "making adjectives function as adverbs". As I mentioned above, all these then fall under idiomatic expressions and not the intrinsic structure of the language. In contrast, a prepositional phrase is adverbial and, by default, can be put into attributive position with exactly the same meaning as if it was equivalent to a declarative statement with the noun as the subject of the copulative verb. This is what I meant by "generic".

MAubrey wrote:No, David. You're wrong, very wrong. There is no necessary need for the system of language to be a formal one. Language is a system, but it is a neural metaphorical system and emerges (in the sense of emergence theory) from the inter-working of other basic cognitive systems of the brain (motor, visual, etc.). Any formal construct is of our own making with little or no relationship to the nature of the linguistic system itself.


This is your opinion, of course different from mine, and different from some linguists too. I do not want to argue because it is just my opinion.

Your "three alternatives" are nonsense.


Really? You should check up the various formal systems used in linguistics to describe natural language. I don't exactly subscribe to any, but I found that my view has similar elements to Categorial Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar. The alternatives I gave are of course based on the formal system I think most accurately describes language, so if you reject formal systems altogether then I think we have nothing more to discuss on the internal grammatical structure. I would be very glad if you can, however, find unambiguous examples of an anarthous prepositional phrase modifying an articular noun. That would immediately disprove my claim, so I would be interested to see it.
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου

Postby MAubrey » August 10th, 2012, 1:10 pm

David Lim wrote:
MAubrey wrote:No, David. You're wrong, very wrong. There is no necessary need for the system of language to be a formal one. Language is a system, but it is a neural metaphorical system and emerges (in the sense of emergence theory) from the inter-working of other basic cognitive systems of the brain (motor, visual, etc.). Any formal construct is of our own making with little or no relationship to the nature of the linguistic system itself.

This is your opinion, of course different from mine, and different from some linguists too. I do not want to argue because it is just my opinion.

The difference is, however, is that those linguists who I disagree with in their opinion on the matter, have thoroughly laid out their theoretical assumptions as to why they hold such an opinion. Thus, for example, while Chomksy and his adherents thoroughly disagrees with me on this point, I completely respect their work because were I to hold their views on other more basic issues, I would find their view as quite reasonable.

In contrast, I'm not convinced that you understand the larger implications of your ideas at all.

Very, very few linguists who hold to the kinds of formal systems that you do would also, for example, hold to the kinds of ideas about the value of statistics that you have expressed for the determination of descriptive grammar. And those few who do are very much on the margins of the field and not generally not taken particularly seriously.
David Lim wrote:
MAubrey wrote:Your "three alternatives" are nonsense.

Really? You should check up the various formal systems used in linguistics to describe natural language. I don't exactly subscribe to any, but I found that my view has similar elements to Categorial Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar. The alternatives I gave are of course based on the formal system I think most accurately describes language, so if you reject formal systems altogether then I think we have nothing more to discuss on the internal grammatical structure.

Sigh...your lack of familiarity with linguistics is always excessively clear.

I've been studying and using LFG for over five years now...along with a variety of other theories, including, but not limited to, Construction Grammar, Head-drive Phrase Structure Grammar, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Cognitive Grammar, Emergent Grammar, Minimalism, Role and Reference Grammar. I've taught the syntax portion of a class called Survey of Linguistic Theories at Trinity Western University. I very much know the theoretical landscape. And your ideas don't fit it. I would anticipate that you've successfully misread the literature. But you also have the poor habit of never citing anything, also, so I cannot say for sure.

If you were more familiar with the literature for both Categorial Grammar and LFG, you would already know that neither framework makes psychological claims on the basis of their formal architecture. That is, they do not view the formal representation itself as even remotely being connected to what is going on in the brain (See, for example, Joan Bresnan, Lexical-functional syntax, pages 43ff.).
David Lim wrote:I would be very glad if you can, however, find unambiguous examples of an anarthous prepositional phrase modifying an articular noun. That would immediately disprove my claim, so I would be interested to see it.

Since you are actually the one making the point that everyone disagrees with here. I would suggest that the onus is on you to prove the opposite point unambiguously. I'm not going to spend my valuable time digging through syntax and morphology searches for your benefit when I could doing more pressing research for my own projects. You have a history of ignoring evidence when you've already make up your mind on a point.

With that said, off the top of my head, I can say that you could perhaps doing some reading in Herodotus' Histories, book 2, chapter 120.
Mike Aubrey
Canada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School
MAubrey
 
Posts: 634
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » August 10th, 2012, 4:41 pm

Stephen,

A. T. Robertson has a discussion of this on page 782 (4.)-783 with a number of examples. You can view it here.

Here are some sample texts.

Eph. 6:5 (some mss. read) Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα ...

Luke 16:10 Ὁ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ ἄδικος καὶ ἐν πολλῷ ἄδικός ἐστιν.

1Tim. 6:17 Τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι παράγγελλε μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ θεῷ τῷ παρέχοντι ἡμῖν πάντα πλουσίως εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν,

Rom. 15:31 ἵνα ῥυσθῶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπειθούντων ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ καὶ ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ εὐπρόσδεκτος τοῖς ἁγίοις γένηται,

1Cor. 10:18 βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα· οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν;

Eph. 2:11 Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου,

Eph. 2:15 τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας, ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην

Eph. 4:1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε,

1Th. 4:16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον,

2Cor. 9:13 διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τῆς διακονίας ταύτης δοξάζοντες τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς πάντας,

Rom. 16:10 ἀσπάσασθε Ἀπελλῆν τὸν δόκιμον ἐν Χριστῷ. ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστοβούλου.

1Cor. 15:18 ἄρα καὶ οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ ἀπώλοντο.


C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 210
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου

Postby Stephen Carlson » August 10th, 2012, 6:34 pm

Thank you very much for this, Stirling. The examples confirm that non-articular prepositional phrases can be modifiers.

This caused me to review the structure of the Greek noun phrase, as set forth by Stéphanie J. Bakker, The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek: A Functional Analysis of the Order and Articulation of NP Constituents in Herodotus (ASCP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2009).

For NPs of the form aNX, where a=article, N=noun, and X=modifier (including a prepositional phrase), Bakker summarizes her findings as follows in part:

Bakker, NP in Ancient Greek, pp.290-1, wrote:Traditionally, the modifiers of the XaN and aNX pattern are said to stand in predicative position. In Chapter 6, section 6.1.1.1, I showed, however, that it is not the position, but the articulation of the modifiers that is decisive. Furthermore, I argued that since only non-articular adjectives, numerals and some participles in single-modifier NPs can be interpreted predicatively, predicative value cannot be the general characteristic of the modifiers in the aNX and Xan pattern. What does unite the modifiers in these patterns (see Chapter 6, section 6.1.1.2) is that they characterise the referent, i.e., that they give information on the reference without the intention to distinguish this referent from other possible entities. While 'common' reference characterising modifiers describe a more permanent feature of the reference, non-articular adjectives and numbers (having a predicative value) express a temporary state of the referent. Participles in the aNX and XaN patterns were argues to unite these two aspects, as they may both express a temporary state of the reference and ascribe a more permanent feature to it.

That the modifiers in the aNX and XaN patterns characterise the reference does not mean that they are by definitive unnecessary for the identification of the reference. Non-articular genitives, possessives and prepositional phrases often provide information that is essential for the identification. In contrast to the reference specifying modifiers discussed above [i.e., those with the article], however, these non-articular reference characterising modifiers do not identify the reference by distinguishing it from other entities fitting the description of the noun. This does imply that the referent modifiers never set up a contrast between two entities, for there may be a contrast between the referent of the modifier itself and some other entity (e.g. τῶν ἀσπίδων τὰ ὄχανα 'of the shields the handles' vs. τὰ τόξα 'the bows'). In cases like this, however, it is the referent of the modifier on its own that is opposed to some other entity not not the referent of the NP in its totality.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου

Postby David Lim » August 10th, 2012, 10:26 pm

Hello Stirling,

Thanks! I cannot see the reference you mention on Google Books, but I would like to give an alternative explanation for each:

Eph. 6:5 (some mss. read) Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα ...
I know the variant reading is "τοις κατα σαρκα κυριοις", but that does not mean that this means the same. I take "κατα σαρκα" to construe with "υπακουετε"; "as to fleshly things, listen to your lords".

Luke 16:10 Ὁ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ ἄδικος καὶ ἐν πολλῷ ἄδικός ἐστιν.
"πιστος" here is a verbal noun and "εν ελαχιστω" modifies the implicit verbal idea.

1Tim. 6:17 Τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι παράγγελλε μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ θεῷ τῷ παρέχοντι ἡμῖν πάντα πλουσίως εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν,
Again "πλουσιοις" can be taken as a verbal noun thus the phrase corresponds to "τοις πλουτουσιν εν τω νυν αιωνι", even as the very next part of the sentence says "αγαθοεργειν πλουτειν εν εργοις καλοις".

Rom. 15:31 ἵνα ῥυσθῶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπειθούντων ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ καὶ ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ εὐπρόσδεκτος τοῖς ἁγίοις γένηται,
"απειθουντων" is a verb (participle) and there is nothing unusual for "εν τη ιουδαια" to modify it.

1Cor. 10:18 βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα· οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν;
I see nothing wrong with taking "κατα σαρκα" adverbially here; "as to the flesh, look at Israel!" Likewise in 1 Cor 1:26, "κατα σαρκα" does not only modify "σοφοι" but is used adverbially; "for look at our calling, brothers, that as to the flesh, not many are wise, not many are powerful, not many are noble.".

Eph. 2:11 Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου,
"εν σαρκι" here modifies the implicit copulative; "once you [were] the nations in [the] flesh".

Eph. 2:15 τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας, ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην
"των εντολων εν δογμασιν" corresponds to "the [things] commanded in ordinances".

Eph. 4:1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε,
Again, "ο δεσμοις" clearly contains the verbal idea "the one bound".

1Th. 4:16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον,
Likewise; "the ones who died in Christ".

2Cor. 9:13 διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τῆς διακονίας ταύτης δοξάζοντες τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς πάντας,
Also; "the sharing to them and to all".

Rom. 16:10 ἀσπάσασθε Ἀπελλῆν τὸν δόκιμον ἐν Χριστῷ. ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστοβούλου.
Again, the verbal idea is clear; "the approved [one] in Christ"; as we can see in Rom 14:18; "ευαρεστος τω θεω και δοκιμος τοις ανθρωποις".

1Cor. 15:18 ἄρα καὶ οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ ἀπώλοντο.
"εν χριστω" obviously modifies the verb (participle) "κοιμηθεντες".
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου

Postby David Lim » August 10th, 2012, 10:56 pm

MAubrey wrote:If you were more familiar with the literature for both Categorial Grammar and LFG, you would already know that neither framework makes psychological claims on the basis of their formal architecture. That is, they do not view the formal representation itself as even remotely being connected to what is going on in the brain (See, for example, Joan Bresnan, Lexical-functional syntax, pages 43ff.).


I know that! What I am saying is two separate things. One, that I believe there is a formal system that best describes natural languages. Two, that people innately learn languages by unconsciously constructing formal rules, which may be inaccurate or incorrect, but which approximate the actual formal system. This explains why native speakers can often tell immediately which phrases are invalid even without being immediately able to explain why. Anyway never mind if you still disagree.

MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:I would be very glad if you can, however, find unambiguous examples of an anarthous prepositional phrase modifying an articular noun. That would immediately disprove my claim, so I would be interested to see it.

Since you are actually the one making the point that everyone disagrees with here. I would suggest that the onus is on you to prove the opposite point unambiguously. I'm not going to spend my valuable time digging through syntax and morphology searches for your benefit when I could doing more pressing research for my own projects. You have a history of ignoring evidence when you've already make up your mind on a point.

With that said, off the top of my head, I can say that you could perhaps doing some reading in Herodotus' Histories, book 2, chapter 120.


What? Alan is making essentially the same point. It is just as necessary for us to prove that anarthous prepositional phrases do not modify articular nouns as it is for you to prove that some do, since there is little evidence for either side. By the way, I always acknowledge my mistakes once I know them, and you should not say that I have a history of doing otherwise. Thanks for suggesting that chapter in Herodotus. I have read it and don't see anything relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you should point out where you are referring to? If perhaps you were referring to the following:
[Hdt.2.120.5] "ὡς τῶν μεγάλων ἀδικημάτων μεγάλαι εἰσὶ καὶ αἱ τιμωρίαι παρὰ τῶν θεῶν"
"παρα των θεων" modifies "εισι", even as LSJ also implies: "of persons in authority, “αἱ τ. εἰσὶ παρὰ τῶν θεῶν” Hdt.2.120".
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Syntax and Grammar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest