David Lim wrote: Stephen Hughes wrote:
David Lim wrote:or accusative if we include things like "το ειναι καλον"
Could you explain this statement - how you see the structure of these three words.
I meant "ειναι καλον" used as an indirect statement, where "καλον" must be accusative to match the accusative "subject" of "ειναι". I accidentally added the article because there is an analogous construction with some prepositions that require the article. Examples of this kind of predicate adjectives can be found at Acts 17:29, Rom 3:26, 4:16, 7:3, 8:29, Rom 14:14, 2 Cor 7:14, 11:16. (As Carl said, I too should have cited these texts instead of pulling one out of my head.) But this is besides my point, which is that an adjective used as a predicate invariably follows noun phrases that are predicates, and hence will be in the nominative except for special cases like these.
Permit me a digression before I start, to tell you a little of my thinking behind this / in this area As we have seen in Scott's question, grammatical analyses and approaches to teaching grammar are customarily based on the asumption that the nominative is the basic case from which cases are derived and from which rules of syntax are built up. The language however is much more than that.
It seems that given the simplified conditions - sticking only to the nominative case - the patterns of first and second postition attributive, and then rearranging the word order a little can convey a predicative sense. I think that the nominative case (simple noun, pronoun or nominal phrase) has, in itself, the power to input "predication" into a sentence - in being the case that has the role / power of controling / harnessing / defining finite verbs it goes quite naturally with them. Other case don't have that role of controlling the verb, but rather they go along with the action of the verb in a way that doesn't have the ability to change / control / limit the verb. The teaching and reference grammars always translate sentences like σόφος ὁ ἀνήρ as "The husband is wise", which is logical enough, but I don't think captures the essence of what is happening. The problem, as I see it is that "is", is a convenient, but not very clear word. When "is" is used, the sentence seems somehow distant from the from the speaker and their interlocutor - the 3rd person being distant from the speaker (1st person) and listener (2nd person). Instead of the nominative case acting on / controlling / defining the extent of a verb's actions, it works on our senses / perception and leaves us with the ability to bring out a suitable verb. σόφος ὁ ἀνήρ "the husband is wife" (impresses us as wife because he remembers his wife's birthday - a logical things, where "is " could be suitable - "the husband impresses us as wise"). ἄγριος ὁ λέων "the lion is wild" (the lion "fears" us as wild), εὔωδες τὸ ἄνθος "the flower is fragrant" (impresses us through the faculty of smell that it is fragrant - the flowers "smells" to υs fragrant.). The verb "to be" is just a simplification of a lot of sensory or perceptional processes. I personally feel that the customary translation "is" / "are" for those nominative case ones doesn't do justice to the immediacy of the construction to our senses.
Of course, in both the nominative case and the other cases where the adjective is used in either first or second position attrbutive appears to be fully flexible to be able to bend into any case except (perhaps) the vocative - where overloading a way to get someone's attention requires them to distance themselves from what is said and to think about the meaning of it rather then just to responed to it. Smyth's examples that Scott related, are all in the nominative, which is the easiest case to analyse with the best patterns.
With out the inherent force of the nominative, the other cases need to be given a verbal force from outside to have a verbal force, and that is done, so far as I can udnerstand it, through the participle. The participle (in what is called its adjectival usage) as attributive is needed in the oblique cases to supply what the nominative calls us to supply "instictively". Where there is not a new thing being brought up in the context of that phrase and it could be well recognised then an adjective is used.
So much for some of my thinking, now for David's points
Why I was unclear about what you were responding to last night was because you only quoted adjectival attributives without the corresponding participial ones. Let me introduce some for you as I look at a few of the verses.
Mark 1:27 RP wrote:Καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν πάντες, ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτούς, λέγοντας, Τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; Τίς ἡ διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ αὕτη, ὅτι κατ’ ἐξουσίαν καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασιν τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ;
David Lim wrote:I don't see a distinction between the way an adjective modifies a noun phrase and the way a participle used adjectivally does. I would say that in both cases the resulting combined noun phrase refers to some (contextually dependent) entity that is described by the noun phrase and the adjective/participle, and hence it is not true that an adjective expresses something about the noun phrase that is true in other contexts.
The verbal form of καινός is of course ἀνακαινοῖν. In your example, the "newness" of the doctrine existed before it was brought to the attention of the people who heard it. In this verse...
Colosians 3:10 wrote:καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον, τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν·
"and putting on the new man, the one being made made new to the extent that they recognise the representation of their creator in themselves" (If someone wants to discuss that verse and its understanding - perhaps we could start another thread). Here the newness is being worked out as part of what is happening here. And so on for your other examples of νέος, καινός and παλαιός.
Luke 13:33 wrote:καὶ μαστιγώσαντες ἀποκτενοῦσιν αὐτόν· καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ ἀναστήσεται.
"and after they flail him they will kill him and on the third day he will resurrect / recover and get back on his feet."
Ordinals aren't usually paired together with a verbal form. I'm not sure what you mean by introducing this - the meaning of the τρῖτος is like part of the structure of the language - people who know Greek will understand this concept of "third" before they read it in this sentence. And so for ἄλλος in Jn. 18:16, that is also a functioning word - part of "knowing the Greek language" overall, and not an idication of how flexibly one can change from adjectival to participial forms. Acts 6:1 and the καθημερινός what you have quoted is also one of those things that are like τρῖτος and difficult to pair with a verb.
Luke 21:2, 3 PR wrote:εἶδεν δέ τινα καὶ χήραν πενιχρὰν βάλλουσαν ἐκεῖ δύο λεπτά καὶ εἶπεν, Ἀληθῶς λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ χήρα ἡ πτωχὴ αὕτη πλεῖον πάντων ἔβαλεν·
"He saw someone even a widow placing two coins into it and remarked, It would be true to say that this poor widow has put in more than all the others combined."[/quote]She was in a position of economic disadvantage before she put her coins in - and like the widow that hosted Elijah she put the coins in with a prayer and faith. Perhaps instead of considering our hyperbole, "it doesn't mean that she had always been and will always be poor", we could conjecture what verb could be used to express the onset of poverty or a steady decrease in wealth. Perhaps the πτωχεύω of
2 Corinthians 8:9 PR wrote:Γινώσκετε γὰρ τὴν χάριν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, ὅτι δι’ ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσεν, πλούσιος ὤν, ἵνα ὑμεῖς τῇ ἐκείνου πτωχείᾳ πλουτήσητε.
"I want you to realise the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, because he became poor for us (in spite of the fact that he was so rich) so that through his poverty we would be able to become rich." put into a participial form, or perhaps better the δαπανᾷν of
Mark 5:26b PR wrote:καὶ δαπανήσασα τὰ παρ’ αὐτῆς πάντα
which if in the present could express what was happening during the context of the verse, i.e. that giving the coins made her poor - but actually she already was. In your
1 Corinthians 7:14 PR wrote:Ἡγίασται γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἄπιστος ἐν τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἡγίασται ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄπιστος ἐν τῷ ἀνδρί · ἐπεὶ ἄρα τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν ἀκάθαρτά ἐστιν, νῦν δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν.
we would hope that the efforts of the wife to save her husband would not make him more of an unbeliever, but it does happen sometimes. Perhaps the verb there could be something like
Hebrews 12:15 wrote:ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα
"αἴκα" (The Spartan Ephors' reply to Philip II of Macedon) is even better than "nuts" (General Anthony McAuliffe reply to General Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz).