Stephen Carlson wrote:Given the technical linguistic nature that this thread has come to exhibit, I propose to move it to the linguistics sub-forum later this evening.
David Lim wrote:Both have the same syntactical position as that of an adverb, so to me it is more complicated to take words in such usage to be part of the subject noun phrase.
MAubrey wrote:David Lim wrote:Both have the same syntactical position as that of an adverb, so to me it is more complicated to take words in such usage to be part of the subject noun phrase.
Every time someone uses the word syntactical when they mean syntactic a puppy dies.
David Lim wrote:MAubrey wrote:David Lim wrote:Both have the same syntactical position as that of an adverb, so to me it is more complicated to take words in such usage to be part of the subject noun phrase.
Every time someone uses the word syntactical when they mean syntactic a puppy dies.
I'll assume you're joking, because "syntactical" is a valid word which means exactly the same thing as "syntactic". I don't mind jokes, however, I don't appreciate people linking what I say to when lovely creatures in the creation of God dies. Do keep such words out of this forum.
Jason Hare wrote:I'm sure he meant to say that a fairy loses its wings. Real fairies are nasty creatures, you know.
Stephen Carlson wrote:All kidding aside, I do think that, since this topic is now in the linguistics sub-forum, we should use terms that are standard. For example, in linguistics, articles are a kind of determiner, so if there's a statement to the effect that they are not, one should chose other terms to avoid the self-contradiction.
Stephen Carlson wrote:All kidding aside, I do think that, since this topic is now in the linguistics sub-forum, we should use terms that are standard. For example, in linguistics, articles are a kind of determiner, so if there's a statement to the effect that they are not, one should chose other terms to avoid the self-contradiction.
Paul-Nitz wrote:Carl,
You had written:
"I think, however, that usages of αὐτός are much more confusing when one learns by the grammar-translation method. If you learn the right usage by imitation, you may still have difficulty explaining the usage to another. "
Terms are nice when they work. But usage is what I'm really interested in. Forgive my silly question. Some time back in this thread, when I was still tracking it, I read that Smyth says αυτος is never in the nominative. Huh?328. αὐτός is a definite adjective and a pronoun. It has three meanings:
a. self: standing by itself in the nominative, αὐτὸς ὁ ἀνήρ or ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτός the man himself, or (without the article) in agreement with a substantive or pronoun; as ἀνδρὸς αὐτοῦ of the man himself.
b. him, her, it, them, etc.: standing by itself in an oblique case (never in the nominative). The oblique cases of αὐτός are generally used instead of οὗ, οἷ, ἕ, etc., as ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ his father, οἱ παῖδες αὐτῶν their children.
c. same: when it is preceded by the article in any case: ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνήρ the same man, τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀνδρός of the same man.
I must be misunderstanding something there.
Let me ask my question this way...
If I say αυτος λαμβανει το τεκνον, is there anything different in emphasis or meaning than saying εγω (or συ, ημεις, υμεις) λαμβανω το τεκνον ??
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest