Greek Particles

Post Reply
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Greek Particles

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 17th, 2015, 4:03 pm

Particles are rare in the Koine period. Lexicon, accidence and syntax is what makes Greek Greek. Particles make Greek ornate or embellished. We may have underestimated particles, but not overestimated the other things.
0 x


Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2802
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: How important is syntax?

Post by Stephen Carlson » November 17th, 2015, 4:13 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:Particles are rare in the Koine period. Lexicon, accidence and syntax is what makes Greek Greek. Particles make Greek ornate or embellished. We may have underestimated particles, but not overestimated the other things.
Though the dissertation is about particles and justifying its discourse-oriented approach to them, I feel that the larger point that discourse matters, perhaps even more than syntax, still applies to the Koine period. Particles like δέ, οὖν, γάρ, etc. are still common in the NT, albeit a smaller set of them. Other effects, like word order are more sensitive to discourse considerations than syntax, so the larger point still holds.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: How important is syntax?

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 17th, 2015, 7:48 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Particles are rare in the Koine period. Lexicon, accidence and syntax is what makes Greek Greek. Particles make Greek ornate or embellished. We may have underestimated particles, but not overestimated the other things.
Though the dissertation is about particles and justifying its discourse-oriented approach to them, I feel that the larger point that discourse matters, perhaps even more than syntax, still applies to the Koine period. Particles like δέ, οὖν, γάρ, etc. are still common in the NT, albeit a smaller set of them. Other effects, like word order are more sensitive to discourse considerations than syntax, so the larger point still holds.
I'm sorry to say that you can basically ignore my remarks here. I was under the mistaken belief that the word "particle" was used in reference to δή, μά or νή. I see now that BDAG calls them "markers".
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2802
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: How important is syntax?

Post by Stephen Carlson » November 17th, 2015, 8:11 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm sorry to say that you can basically ignore my remarks here. I was under the mistaken belief that the word "particle" was used in reference to δή, μά or νή. I see now that BDAG calls them "markers".
I wasn't aware that you had a much more stringent definition of "particle." Ever since Denniston, people have been more expansive. The dissertation from which I quoted the paragraph looks at δέ, γάρ, καὶ γάρ, ἦ, δή, δὴ γάρ, ἄρα, and τε. Some of these are still viable in Koine.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: How important is syntax?

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 17th, 2015, 9:18 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm sorry to say that you can basically ignore my remarks here. I was under the mistaken belief that the word "particle" was used in reference to δή, μά or νή. I see now that BDAG calls them "markers".
I wasn't aware that you had a much more stringent definition of "particle." Ever since Denniston, people have been more expansive. The dissertation from which I quoted the paragraph looks at δέ, γάρ, καὶ γάρ, ἦ, δή, δὴ γάρ, ἄρα, and τε. Some of these are still viable in Koine.
Not just those three. Any that don't serve a purpose in joining either smaller or larger parts of the text.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2802
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: How important is syntax?

Post by Stephen Carlson » November 17th, 2015, 9:25 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm sorry to say that you can basically ignore my remarks here. I was under the mistaken belief that the word "particle" was used in reference to δή, μά or νή. I see now that BDAG calls them "markers".
I wasn't aware that you had a much more stringent definition of "particle." Ever since Denniston, people have been more expansive. The dissertation from which I quoted the paragraph looks at δέ, γάρ, καὶ γάρ, ἦ, δή, δὴ γάρ, ἄρα, and τε. Some of these are still viable in Koine.
Not just those three. Any that don't serve a purpose in joining either smaller or larger parts of the text.
This is getting beside the point, but δή is found in Matt 13:13, Luke 2:15, Acts 13:2, 15:36, and 1 Cor 6:20, and νή is read in 1 Cor 15:21.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: How important is syntax?

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 18th, 2015, 4:19 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote: δή is found in Matt 13:13, Luke 2:15, Acts 13:2, 15:36, and 1 Cor 6:20
Compare that to the frequency in (for example) 1-4 Kings in the LXX;

Code: Select all

1Kgs 10:15, 1Kgs 14:17, 1Kgs 14:29, 1Kgs 14:41, 1Kgs 15:25, 1Kgs 15:30, 1Kgs 16:15, 1Kgs 16:16, 1Kgs 16:17, 1Kgs 16:22, 1Kgs 17:32, 1Kgs 20:29, 1Kgs 20:29, 1Kgs 20:5, 1Kgs 22:12, 1Kgs 22:3, 1Kgs 22:7, 1Kgs 23:22, 1Kgs 25:24, 1Kgs 25:25, 1Kgs 25:28, 1Kgs 25:8, 1Kgs 26:11, 1Kgs 26:16, 1Kgs 26:19, 1Kgs 27:5, 1Kgs 27:5, 1Kgs 28:21, 1Kgs 28:22, 1Kgs 28:8, 1Kgs 28:9, 1Kgs 3:17, 1Kgs 30:15, 1Kgs 6:3, 1Kgs 9:18, 1Kgs 9:6, 2Kgs 1:9, 2Kgs 13:13, 2Kgs 13:17, 2Kgs 13:24, 2Kgs 13:25, 2Kgs 13:26, 2Kgs 13:5, 2Kgs 13:6, 2Kgs 13:7, 2Kgs 14:11, 2Kgs 14:12, 2Kgs 14:15, 2Kgs 14:17, 2Kgs 14:18, 2Kgs 14:2, 2Kgs 14:21, 2Kgs 15:31, 2Kgs 15:7, 2Kgs 16:9, 2Kgs 17:1, 2Kgs 17:5, 2Kgs 18:19, 2Kgs 19:38, 2Kgs 2:14, 2Kgs 20:16, 2Kgs 24:10, 2Kgs 24:14, 2Kgs 24:17, 2Kgs 24:2, 2Kgs 3:21, 2Kgs 7:2, 3Kgs 1:12, 3Kgs 12:24k, 3Kgs 17:10, 3Kgs 17:11, 3Kgs 17:21, 3Kgs 19:4, 3Kgs 2:17, 3Kgs 21:31, 3Kgs 21:32, 3Kgs 21:35, 3Kgs 21:37, 3Kgs 21:7, 3Kgs 22:13, 3Kgs 22:5, 3Kgs 8:26, 4Kgs 1:13, 4Kgs 1:14, 4Kgs 18:19, 4Kgs 18:23, 4Kgs 18:26, 4Kgs 2:16, 4Kgs 2:2, 4Kgs 2:4, 4Kgs 2:6, 4Kgs 2:9, 4Kgs 20:3, 4Kgs 20:3, 4Kgs 4:10, 4Kgs 4:13, 4Kgs 4:22, 4Kgs 4:25, 4Kgs 4:9, 4Kgs 5:11, 4Kgs 5:15, 4Kgs 5:17, 4Kgs 5:18, 4Kgs 5:22, 4Kgs 5:7, 4Kgs 5:8, 4Kgs 6:1, 4Kgs 6:18, 4Kgs 6:2, 4Kgs 6:20, 4Kgs 7:12, 4Kgs 7:13, 4Kgs 8:4, 4Kgs 9:12, 4Kgs 9:26, 4Kgs 9:34
δή seems way more frequent in the earlier text.

Anyway, my first comment was out of sync. with the meaning of terminology as used by others more worthy of reference than myself.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2802
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: How important is syntax?

Post by Stephen Carlson » November 18th, 2015, 5:20 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:Anyway, my first comment was out of sync. with the meaning of terminology as used by others more worthy of reference than myself.
No worries: this is now in its own thread, if anyone is interested.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Post Reply