Page 2 of 3

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: March 29th, 2016, 6:07 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Well, I didn't realize that the wordhood (wordness? word status?) of a word used in the New York Times would be so controversial. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/opini ... onary.html

I believe the univerbation of τοῦτ' ἔστιν is accented τουτέστιν (LSJ p. 1808, s.v. τουτέστι, citing the TR for Mark 7:2 among others). My impression from reading older editions is that earlier (i.e., early modern) editors of Greek seemed more apt to typeset certain fixed expressions as single words, hence the difference in the treatment among the authorities that Alan is looking at.

I wonder sometimes about πρὀ τοῦ before an articular infinitive. In Galatians, it acts like a lexical preposition like πρίν. Note the position of the postpositive connective particles in Gal 3:23 Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν ... and Gal 2:12 πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου ... . Now, LSJ in its entry for πρό notes that πρὸ τοῦ was sometimes written as a single word:
LSJ 1465, s.v. πρό II.1 wrote:π. τοῦ (sts. written προτοῦ) A.Ag.1204, Hdt.1.122, 5.83, Ar.Th.418, Pl.Smp.173a; ὁ π. τοῦ χρόνος A.Eu.462, Th.2.58, etc.; π. τοῦ ἤ, = πρὶν ἤ, IG7.2225.22 (Thisbe)
Should προτοῦ be a New Testament word? I don't know... on the plus side, it avoids having to invoke a weird exception for the placement of γάρ and δέ in Galatians 2:12 and 3:23 respectively.

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: March 30th, 2016, 9:20 am
by cwconrad
Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, I didn't realize that the wordhood (wordness? word status?) of a word used in the New York Times would be so controversial. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/opini ... onary.html
OK, there's been no "Word Induction ceremony" for "wordhood" (which my computer's spell-checker still automatically separates into two words), but I have found it not in dictionaries but in Wiktionary and with a note that it first appeared in 2009. There's no difficulty recognizing what the intended meaning is. What I deplore, as a confirmed believer in that version of the doctrine of original sin set forth in the Babel story of the invention of gobbledygook, is the neologism that doesn't seem to respond to a discernible need. Perhaps it's a matter of our age, but I think we develop differing degrees of tolerance for neologisms, although this is largely a matter of our judgment of the usefulness and helpfulness of each coinage. I like the adage,
Be not the first by whom the new is tried
nor yet the last by whom the old is set aside.

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: March 30th, 2016, 12:24 pm
by ed krentz
What Carl Conrad writes makes great good sense. Thus discussion is about Logomachy! Whether ife is one word or two makes no difference to its pronunciation or meaning. One might trust that scribes of Greek mss knew how to write it.

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: August 9th, 2017, 12:22 pm
by Jonathan Robie
Stephen Carlson wrote:
March 29th, 2016, 6:07 pm
I believe the univerbation of τοῦτ' ἔστιν is accented τουτέστιν (LSJ p. 1808, s.v. τουτέστι, citing the TR for Mark 7:2 among others).
I stumbled over this while fixing some slides. Here's the quote as found on Logeion:
GreekShortRefs wrote:τουτέστι, that is to say
LSJ wrote:τουτέστι,
A = τοῦτʼ ἔστι, that is to say, Ev.Marc.7.2, Plu.2.64c, Heph. 12.1, A.D.Synt.29.13, Cod.Just.1.1.5.3, etc.; f.l. in Arist.Fr.94 (codd. SM Stob.).

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: August 9th, 2017, 12:54 pm
by Jonathan Robie
ed krentz wrote:
March 30th, 2016, 12:24 pm
What Carl Conrad writes makes great good sense. Thus discussion is about Logomachy! Whether ife is one word or two makes no difference to its pronunciation or meaning. One might trust that scribes of Greek mss knew how to write it.
τοῦτ’ ἔστιν is one of the examples discussed in BDR, section 12, Worttrennung (Division of Words). I suspect it is in BDF, section 12 as well, the section numbers tend to be the same.

Note that δέ can divide τοῦτο ἐστιν, so it seems still to be thought of as two words here:
Romans 1:12 wrote:τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ.
Alan - do the original manuscripts teach us anything useful that hasn't been discussed here so far?

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: August 10th, 2017, 5:00 am
by Tony Pope
Jonathan Robie wrote:
August 9th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Note that δέ can divide τοῦτο ἐστιν, so it seems still to be thought of as two words here:
Romans 1:12 wrote:τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ.
Lightfoot draws a distinction between τοῦτ᾽ εστιν and τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν: "The difference is important. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν is corrective as well as explanatory, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν is explanatory merely. St Paul wishes to substitute something more appropriate for what he has just said."

J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul from Unpublished Commentaries, 1895, p. 248
https://archive.org/stream/notesonepist ... 8/mode/2up

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: August 10th, 2017, 8:35 am
by Jonathan Robie
Tony Pope wrote:
August 10th, 2017, 5:00 am
Jonathan Robie wrote:
August 9th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Note that δέ can divide τοῦτο ἐστιν, so it seems still to be thought of as two words here:
Romans 1:12 wrote:τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ.
Lightfoot draws a distinction between τοῦτ᾽ εστιν and τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν: "The difference is important. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν is corrective as well as explanatory, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν is explanatory merely. St Paul wishes to substitute something more appropriate for what he has just said."

J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul from Unpublished Commentaries, 1895, p. 248
https://archive.org/stream/notesonepist ... 8/mode/2up
But isn't the difference he describes between τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν and τοῦτ᾽ εστιν the same as the meaning of δέ? Do you think there would be a difference in meaning between these two sentences (pretending, for the sake of argument, that the New Testament used both spellings)?
τουτέστιν δέ συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ.
τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ.
I suspect these mean the same thing, and that the first would be used if the writer considers τουτέστιν to be a single word, the second if the writer considers τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν to be three distinct words.

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: August 10th, 2017, 7:03 pm
by Alan Bunning
Jonathan Robie wrote:
August 9th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Alan - do the original manuscripts teach us anything useful that hasn't been discussed here so far?
Not that I can remember. I think it is the sort of thing that comes down to editor choice.

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: August 12th, 2017, 1:46 am
by Tony Pope
Jonathan Robie wrote:
August 10th, 2017, 8:35 am
Do you think there would be a difference in meaning between these two sentences (pretending, for the sake of argument, that the New Testament used both spellings)?
τουτέστιν δέ συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ.
τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ.
I suspect these mean the same thing, and that the first would be used if the writer considers τουτέστιν to be a single word, the second if the writer considers τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν to be three distinct words.
My suspicion is that the first of these sentences would never be uttered. I may be wrong, of course, but I see τουτέστιν and δέ performing two different functions that are not compatible. I think this is also what Lightfoot is getting at in his comment.

Re: τοῦτ᾽ εστιν

Posted: August 12th, 2017, 7:41 am
by Jonathan Robie
Tony Pope wrote:
August 12th, 2017, 1:46 am
My suspicion is that the first of these sentences would never be uttered. I may be wrong, of course, but I see τουτέστιν and δέ performing two different functions that are not compatible. I think this is also what Lightfoot is getting at in his comment.
I was able to find a few examples of this, here is one in Ἡφαιστίων.
Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 7.26.46 AM.png
Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 7.26.46 AM.png (106.54 KiB) Viewed 1964 times