Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

dougknighton
Posts: 31
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 4:56 pm
Location: Westerville, OH
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by dougknighton »

Andrew, I was always taught that locative clauses are subordinate by nature/definition, supporting by distinct statement the main clause. So the adverbial connector in this case should not be taken be taken as a coordinating conjunction; coordinating conjunctions always indicate connections between two independent clauses/propositions which contribute equally in the sentence. Such is not the case here. Look at Matthew 18:20 for another example. ... Does that help?
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

dougknighton wrote: coordinating conjunctions always indicate connections between two independent clauses/propositions which contribute equally in the sentence.
Thanks, Doug, I had understood that this is the usual definition, but then my question was - what is it, if anything? It may not be a 'coordinating conjunction' by definition, but is it nevertheless coordinating, loosely defined? It doesn't matter too much, I am happy for it to be sui generis, if that is in fact the case.

Andrew
dougknighton
Posts: 31
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 4:56 pm
Location: Westerville, OH
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by dougknighton »

Andrew, I think I would heed Carl's warning about applying a permanent label to some specific use of a word. When OUDE is combined so as to yield the idea of "neither ... nor" it functions to coordinate two ideas; but when, as in this case, it introduces the main clause in relation to a subordinate locative clause, its function changes; thus we no longer call it "coordinate" because the propostions are not coordinate. I'm not even sure I'd label it a conjunction, any more than I'd label "its" a conjunction in the main clause of my last sentence -- main clauses introduced by subordinate adverbial clauses (when, where, before, etc.) are not always introduced by conjunctions. I think this is the case in Romans 4:15 (cf. Matthew 18:20 as I mentioned before).
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

I think you can understand ουδε simply as a slightly intensive negative -- no need to take as a coordinate conjunction, i.e., "where there is no law, there is no transgression."
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

I have just realised - or discovered, since I really had never known this, so far as I can recall - is that 'also' is always an adverb, and never a conjunction, at least by most definitions. It is sometimes called a conjunctive adverb when it stands at the beginning of a clause, after a semi-colon and before a comma. I had come across this with καὶ, that the grammars group 'also' and 'even' together as adverbial, but had never quite grasped it.

Also, and this was even more surprising to me, I think 'neither' is an adverb in:

.. but where there is no law, neither is there transgression. [ASV]

This becomes clearer if one re-writes it as 'there is no transgression either', which I think means exactly the same. 'Either' here is definitely an adverb. My dictionary gives this use as 'to indicate a similarity or link with a statement just made'. It seems to me it's almost like creating a correlative pair after the event, as it were:

Where there is no law, there is neither law nor transgression.

It turns out that all the texts in BDAG οὐδέ 2 are of this sort, with οὐδέ meaning either 'also' or 'neither, not either'. None of them are coordinating conjunctions, so far as I can see. They are all adverbial, but distinguished from the ascensive 'not even' meaning. BDAG's three categories thus correspond to Robertson's observation that 'all three uses of καὶ are thus paralleled in οὐδἐ.

Andrew
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Andrew Chapman wrote: BDAG's three categories thus correspond to Robertson's observation that 'all three uses of καὶ are thus paralleled in οὐδἐ.
Except that BDAG puts οὐδέ γάρ in category 1, with the meaning 'and not', 'nor'. It is true that οὐδέ γάρ is joins independent clauses, and so is coordinating, but I think it is γάρ which is the coordinating conjunction and οὐδέ is an adverb.

Thus to translate:

καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς.

we can say in English, 'for neither is there any other name..'; but we can't say 'for nor is there any other name'.

So, I think these cases belong in categories 2 'also not, neither' or 3 'not even'. For an example of the latter:

οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν.

Andrew
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Coming back to an earlier theme, I think I may almost have found in Smyth §2935 a name for the οὐδέ of Romans 4.15:
οὐδέ may stand in an apodosis corresponding to apodotic δέ (2837). Cp. S. O. C. 590
(He doesn't actually say 'apodotic οὐδέ' but..)

Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus, 590:

ἀλλ᾽ εἰ θέλοντά γ᾽ οὐδὲ σοὶ φεύγειν καλόν.
But if you are willing, then exile is not becoming. [Jebb]

It seems that the word apodosis used to be used with a broader sense for the concluding clause of a sentence, and not only for conditional sentences. Thus at 2837 Smyth writes: 'Apodotic δέ is found .. in the principal clause of causal, temporal, comparative, and relative sentences [as well as in conditional and concessive sentences]; and regularly gives greater emphasis to the main clause, which is thus distinctly set off against the subordinate clause. .. The use of apodotic δἐ should not be regarded as a survival of original coordination.'

Andrew
dougknighton
Posts: 31
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 4:56 pm
Location: Westerville, OH
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by dougknighton »

Andrew wrote:
I think it is γάρ which is the coordinating conjunction and οὐδέ is an adverb.
Andrew, you're correct in seeing GAR as a conjunction and OUDE as an adverb, but GAR is not a coordinating conjunction, in that it never introduces another independent main clause. In your example of Acts 4:12, GAR introduces a subordinate clause which contains the reason/ground for the preceding main clause. The same is true for the example from John 7:5, except in this case the sentence introduced by GAR supports the preceding two verses by providing the reason for the brothers' statements to Jesus. While GAR by itself also often introduces explanations/specifics which support previous propositions by restatement, these restatements are subordinate to the main clauses. The 9 combinations of OUDE GAR in the GNT seem to be used only to introduce grounding arguments for the preceding assertions.
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

dougknighton wrote:GAR is not a coordinating conjunction, in that it never introduces another independent main clause.
My understanding was that γάρ was coordinating grammatically, even though often subordinating semantically. Wallace made this point about coordinating conjunctions in general: 'Although the two elements might be equal syntactically, there is often a semantic notion of subordination.[Wallace, GGBB, p.669]'

The closest thing I have found so far to a clear statement on the matter is this from Mike Aubrey (with apologies): 'I'd say Wallace is unique in saying that γαρ GAR is a subordinate conjunction..' http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... 50384.html [Wallace lists γάρ under both categories.]

In English:

'He put his gloves on because his hands were cold' means much the same as:
'He put his gloves on, for his hands were cold'.

But I think (although am not sure) that the first sentence has a subordinate adverbial clause modifying the first main clause, whereas the second has two independent clauses. One test seems to be that 'For his hands were cold.' can stand as an independent sentence, whereas 'Because his hands were cold.' looks doubtful.

Turning the sentence around, one can say 'Because his hands were cold, he put his gloves on.', but definitely not 'For his hands were cold, etc.'

Andrew
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Is this coordinating? οὐδὲ in Romans 4.15

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Andrew Chapman wrote: I think it is γάρ which is the coordinating conjunction and οὐδέ is an adverb.
I just discovered that in the case of καὶ γάρ, and according to Smyth §2813-5, it can be either way around: it can mean either 'and in fact, and indeed', with καὶ as a conjunction and γάρ an adverb, or 'for even, for also' with καὶ as an adverb. BAGD gives only the second option.

Andrew
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”