The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 13th, 2017, 6:06 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 13th, 2017, 2:33 pm
Feel free to keep developing your thoughts in this thread. I'm going to drop out now, I don't think we go about things in the same way, and we seem to be at cross-purposes, so I will drop out and leave you space to explore further.
Being a devil's advocate is by definition being at cross purposes.

I don't know about continuing further. The ideas are developed already, and useful in reading, but I haven't gotten enough control of them to use them in composition.

So far as I understand it, this thread was at your request and for the specific purpose of explaining the background of my thinking that lead to the assertion that ἐστίν had moved for a specific purpose. Perhaps enough has been said already, to show that I am of the opinion that there are two speech styles present in Koine Greek, and that far from becoming a debased form of the language lacking the range of styles that Classical Greek had, there is a structured and alternating set of two speech styles, and that the abstract element comes first, and the concrete one second. So far as I can determine, γεννᾶν belongs to the abstract / general group, which puts it in the first half of the thought (thought being that verse in this case).

If it is gammatically part of the second part of the phrase, but in terms of belonging to either one of the moieties, it is a word that is known and used (exclusively collocated) with the abstract / general moiety, then it seems that in this case, the word's attraction to the first (abstract / conceptual) part of the phrase has pulled the ἐκ πνεύματος into the first position of the second (specific / concrete) part of the phrase, where an adjective should be. (In answer to the question that I assume you are asking, yes, πνεῦμα seems to belong to the second (concrete) moiety). Rather than the ἐστίν following the adjective and preceding the prepositional phrase, the attraction (based on membership of the moiety) of the adjectival preposition to the left pulls the next element into the first position of the second half of the phrase - the predicate.

I wonder if enough has been said already, that at least it can be recognised that there was a basis of reasoning for my explanation to Alan? And that basis of reasoning was based on a two-fold classification of the vocabulary of Koine (I can find the older pattern which is preserved in Koine Greek in relative phrases and after some discourse markers in Classical Greek, but not the structured alternating moieties that are so clearly in our period of the language)?

If enough has been said then this thread has served its purpose, and I can go back to thinking about the syntactic vs the lexical function of prefixed prepositions. The moieties stuff is last year's thinking and boring already.

Jonathan, have we said enough that with or without evidence or proof being presented in full or partially, and with others either understanding, partially understanding, or not understanding what I am talking about, I at least for my part can see (have found) an overal pattern in the vocabulary, or at least I make the claim that I can see (find) an overal pattern in the Koine Greek language, associating certain vocabulary elements with either of two speech styles, and that I can identify, or at least that I claim that I can identify words as belonging to one group or the other? If that at least is clear, then I think enough has been said.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 13th, 2017, 6:06 pm

Shirley Rollinson wrote:
April 13th, 2017, 4:14 pm
toujours la politesse
I realise that he thought he was being helpful. But this thread was started to explain a skill to Jonathan, not to formulate a theory.

Finding the patterns and the words they contain is a matter of trial and error. The skill is in recognising when there are errors - not avoiding errors - and then working with the errors. I don't think there is a way to make progress with this unless there is a willingness to make errors.

What I was hoping that somebody, who was willing to try to find the same structured limitations on usage for a number of words that I am finding, could look at what is happening from the inside.

The suggestion to look at other texts produces something like the following. It is some of the data derived from the New Testament put into Diodorus Siculus. Abstract / general words are green and underlined, while concrete / specific words are red and bold. Nobody would be convinced by anything of this sort. There is not enough common vocabulary.
Diodorus Siculus, Library, 13.90 wrote:ὁ δ᾽ Ἰμίλκας ἅμα τῷ φωτὶ τὴν δύναμιν ἐντὸς τῶν τειχῶν παρεισαγαγὼν
σχεδὸν ἅπαντας τοὺς ἐγκαταλειφθέντας ἀνεῖλεν:
ὅτε δὴ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ναοῖς καταπεφευγότας ἀποσπῶντες οἱ Καρχηδόνιοι ἀνῄρουν.
[2] λέγεται δὲ τὸν Τελλίαν τὸν πρωτεύοντα τῶν πολιτῶν πλούτῳ καὶ καλοκἀγαθίᾳ συνατυχῆσαι τῇ πατρίδι, βουληθέντα καταφυγεῖν σύν τισιν ἑτέροις εἰς τὸ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ἱερόν, νομίζοντα τῆς εἰς θεοὺς παρανομίας ἀφέξεσθαι τοὺς Καρχηδονίους:
θεωροῦντα δὲ αὐτῶν τὴν ἀσέβειαν,
ἐμπρῆσαι τὸν νεὼν καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐν τούτῳ ἀναθημάτων ἑαυτὸν συγκατακαῦσαι.
μιᾷ γὰρ πράξει διελάμβανεν ἀφελέσθαι θεῶν ἀσέβειαν, πολεμίων ἁρπαγὰς πολλῶν χρημάτων,
μέγιστον ἑαυτοῦ τὴν εἰς τὸ σῶμα ἐσομένην ὕβριν.
[3] ὁ δὲ Ἰμίλκας τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τὰς οἰκίας συλήσας καὶ φιλοτίμως ἐρευνήσας,
τοσαύτην ὠφέλειαν συνήθροισεν ὅσην εἰκός ἐστιν ἐσχηκέναι πόλιν οἰκουμένην ὑπὸ ἀνδρῶν εἴκοσι μυριάδων,
ἀπόρθητον δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως γεγενημένην,
πλουσιωτάτην δὲ σχεδὸν τῶν τότε Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων γεγενημένην, καὶ ταῦτα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ φιλοκαλησάντων εἰς παντοίων κατασκευασμάτων πολυτέλειαν:
[4] καὶ γὰρ γραφαὶ παμπληθεῖς ηὑρέθησαν εἰς ἄκρον ἐκπεπονημέναι καὶ παντοίων ἀνδριάντων φιλοτέχνως δεδημιουργημένων ὑπεράγων ἀριθμός.
τὰ μὲν οὖν πολυτελέστατα τῶν ἔργων ἀπέστειλεν εἰς Καρχηδόνα,
ἐν οἷς καὶ τὸν Φαλάριδος συνέβη κομισθῆναι ταῦρον,
τὴν δ᾽ ἄλλην ὠφέλειαν ἐλαφυροπώλησεν.
[5] τοῦτον δὲ τὸν ταῦρον ὁ Τίμαιος ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις διαβεβαιωσάμενος μὴ γεγονέναι τὸ σύνολον, ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς τύχης ἠλέγχθη: Σκιπίων γὰρ ὕστερον ταύτης τῆς ἁλώσεως σχεδὸν ἑξήκοντα καὶ διακοσίοις ἔτεσιν ἐκπορθήσας Καρχηδόνα τοῖς Ἀκραγαντίνοις μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν διαμεινάντων παρὰ τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις ἀποκατέστησε τὸν ταῦρον, ὃς καὶ τῶνδε τῶν ἱστοριῶν γραφομένων ἦν ἐν Ἀκράγαντι. [6] περὶ δὲ τούτου φιλοτιμότερον εἰπεῖν προήχθην, διότι Τίμαιος ὁ τῶν πρό γε αὐτοῦ συγγραφέων πικρότατα κατηγορήσας καὶ συγγνώμην οὐδεμίαν τοῖς ἱστοριογράφοις ἀπολιπὼν αὐτὸς εὑρίσκεται σχεδιάζων, ἐν οἷς μάλιστα ἑαυτὸν ἀποπέφαγκεν ἀκριβολογούμενον. [7] δεῖ γάρ, οἶμαι, τοὺς συγγραφεῖς ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀγνοήμασι τυγχάνειν συγγνώμης, ὡς ἂν ἀνθρώπους ὄντας καὶ τῆς ἐν τοῖς παροιχομένοις χρόνοις ἀληθείας οὔσης δυσευρέτου, τοὺς μέντοι γε κατὰ προαίρεσιν οὐ τυγχάνοντας τοῦ ἀκριβοῦς προσηκόντως κατηγορίας τυγχάνειν, ὅταν κολακεύοντές τινας ἢ δι᾽ ἔχθραν πικρότερον προσβάλλοντες ἀποσφάλλωνται τῆς ἀληθείας.
σχεδὸν - collocated with πᾶς
φιλοτίμως - based in NT usage patterns for φιλοτιμεῖσθαι.

There are not the search tools for other Koine authours freely available, to easily be able to do what can be done with the New Testament.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3132
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 13th, 2017, 6:39 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 13th, 2017, 6:06 pm
Jonathan, have we said enough that with or without evidence or proof being presented in full or partially, and with others either understanding, partially understanding, or not understanding what I am talking about, I at least for my part can see (have found) an overal pattern in the vocabulary, or at least I make the claim that I can see (find) an overal pattern in the Koine Greek language, associating certain vocabulary elements with either of two speech styles, and that I can identify, or at least that I claim that I can identify words as belonging to one group or the other? If that at least is clear, then I think enough has been said.
Yes, I think that's the status.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3132
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 13th, 2017, 6:49 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 13th, 2017, 6:06 pm
Shirley Rollinson wrote:
April 13th, 2017, 4:14 pm
toujours la politesse
I realise that he thought he was being helpful. But this thread was started to explain a skill to Jonathan, not to formulate a theory.
I asked that this be taken out of the beginner's thread, where it really wasn't appropriate. That's how it landed here.

We may have different ways of establishing what is true about language, and we may have different intuitions about the Greek language. If anyone else wants to pursue this with you, they should feel free to.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 24th, 2017, 8:14 pm

Well, if somebody is willing to pick up utensils and ingredients and to try to cook as well, or is willing test drive from the front seat, behind the steering wheel, I'm willing to go on with this, so long as we do not visit the point of "you need to prove to me (us) that you are not wrong". On ethical grounds, I refuse and have consistently refused to give creedence or ground to that way of thinking that led us into eight and a half years of unjust war.

A few observations before discussing one of Levinsohn's examples:

● The verb τολμᾷν occurs in both speech styles. When it is in the abstract / general context, the person "daring" is in the company of others, and when it is in the concrete / specific speech style, it refers to a person alone / in and of themselves. Putting those contexts into glosses for the sake of foreign language speakers, the abstract moiety meaning of τολμᾷν might be "to risk public shame", and the concrete moiety meaning of τολμᾷν might be simply "to have courage in one's heart".

● In its two NT occurences, ἐξετάζειν belongs to the concrete / specific speech style.

In regard to an example from Levinsohn's split constituents, he is apparently unaware of the dual speech styles in both Classical and Koine Greek, so let me contextualise the example in terms of speech styles.

In Classical Greek, as in the example below, the first part of the sentence is in abstract / general speech style. This then develops in the Koine into alternating full phrases, as discussed earlier in this thread. Now the example:
John 21:12 wrote:Οὐδεὶς δὲ ἐτόλμα τῶν μαθητῶν ἐξετάσαι αὐτόν, Σὺ τίς εἶ;
That word order - splitting the ἐτόλμα from the ἐξετάσαι - makes sure that we realise that the τολμᾷν there belongs to the abstract / general speech style, with the meaning "dare in front of others", "risk loss of face", and not part of the concrete / specific speech style, where it might have meant "personally have courage in one's heart". Another way to make the break between speech styles clear would be to clearly place the ἐξετάσαι in the concrete / specific speech style by moving αὐτόν in front of ἐξετάσαι, which would be Οὐδεὶς δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν ἐτόλμα αὐτόν ἐξετάσαι*. Doing that would also make it clear that the change of speech styles occurs between the two verbs. Another way of thinking about it is that is something like couching the verbs between other elements in the speech style, to make it clear where the elements belong.

There are a great many more examples of infinitives clearly moved into the other speech style by separating it with several other elements, than are given in the list the Jonathan has published from Levinsohn in the other thread. But let me say again that if one comes from a classical background, it is understandable that the dual vocabulary moieties could have escaped notice in Classical Greek studies, because they occur patterned within much shorter phrases. It is in the Koine that they become more evident, because they are evident in alternating whole (grammatically complete) phrases too.

[Let me add that 1 Corinthians 11:21 is an interesting use of τολμᾷν. Κατὰ ἀτιμίαν λέγω, ὡς ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠσθενήσαμεν· ἐν ᾧ δ’ ἄν τις τολμᾷ — ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λέγω — τολμῶ κἀγώ. I am not sure whether to take ἐν ᾧ δ’ ἄν τις τολμᾷ as part of whch moeity. Presumably since it is in a relative clause, and it is clearly separated by ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λέγω from the phrase that follows, it is in the "risk public shame" meaning, while Paul's statement is in the "have courage in one's heart" meaning.]
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 25th, 2017, 10:47 am

In regards to Matthew 8:9 in the list of Levinsohn's split constituents that Jonathan has published. I would like to include a post I made in the Matthew 1:20 thread.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 2nd, 2017, 3:11 pm
Alan Bunning wrote:
April 2nd, 2017, 12:23 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 2nd, 2017, 12:00 pm
Is it [τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν] is [ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου] where the participle is an articular participle, or is it [τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ] is [γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου] where the participle is used adjectivally, do you think?
I am not sure. But in either case, I still don't like the verb being where it is, as it seems to set apart "ἁγίου".
I get you point about it being set apart. We can discuss that, but it will take a bit of patience to understand.

In your translation "begotten in her", it seems you have grouped the words as in:
[τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν] is [ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου]
I am inclined to take it as divided the other way:
[τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ] is [γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου]
"That which is in her is decended (traces its geneology) from the Holy Spirit."

To see how the structure is built up, have a look at these explanatory phrases:
Matthew 26:73 wrote:καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ.
for your speaking gives you away
Mark 14:70 wrote:καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖος εἶ
for you are a Galilean too
The verb "to be" is at the end, after the complement.

Now have a look at what happens when a prepositional phrase is added:
Matthew 8:9 wrote:Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας·
for I am a man under authority too, with soldiers under myself
Romans 11:1 wrote:Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Ἰσραηλίτης εἰμί, ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραάμ, φυλῆς Βενιαμίν.
for I am an Israelite too, from the lineage of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin
The verb "to be" now appears to be in the middle of the complement. This shows us where in Matthew 1:20 the ἐστιν has moved from.

The way that only the article is in front of the γάρ can be seen in this example:
1 Corinthians 9:2 wrote:ἡ γὰρ σφραγὶς τῆς ἐμῆς ἀποστολῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ.
You are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
Putting those points together, we can say that "canonically" (according to the rules of composition) it would be expected to be τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθέν ἐστιν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου*. The question is why is it not that.

In all of these examples that we have just looked at the subject is a more abstract idea than the complement. That is to say that there is clear distinction between abstract concepts and concrete ones and that distinction is alligned with the grammar. Here is a discussion of that.

ἡ λαλιά is speech without the concrete idea of actual words, while δῆλον "disclosed", "evident" describes what is right in front of somebody's eyes, and συ "you" is a tangible person.
Here ἡ σφραγὶς is metaphorical, and ἀποστολή "apostleship", "missionary endeavour", while ὑμεῖς "you" are tangible people.

In Matthew 1:20, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου”, γεννηθὲν is in the complement, but it is the abstract idea of descent rather than "giving birth" as one might expect. γεννηθὲν moves according to rules of word order, rather than grammar, it moves to the left, the abstract side of the verb "to be", in moving, it takes the ἐκ πνεύματός with it.

That inadvertantly leaves the ἐστιν between a noun and its adjective.

If the verb had been one like κυόμενον "conceived" a concrete tactile word, rather than the more abstract γεννηθέν "beget", "be the father (not only biological) of", then there would not be a discordance between the degree of abstraction in the beginning and end of the text and the grammatical structure, and hence no need to move the ἐστιν.
There is nothing unusual about the word order of ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν in the verse. It is in the expected position for a prepositional phrase.

Have a look at the pattern of speech styles for those verses apartfrom tne one in question. So, let's take verses 7 - 9:
Καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
[Part of the story-telling structure.]
Ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν
[This is an example of the moieties arranged consecutively in one phrase - the older "Classical" style. ἐλθεῖν is a common abstract / general moiety only word, and θεραπεύειν is common concrete / specific moiety only word, so there is no need to be careful with word order details to make it clear whether the abstract / general meaning is meant, or the concrete specific one].
8 Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη,
[This common formulaic structure (with a few varients, follows the progression from abstract / general "took into account what was said / happened then made a response" to concrete / specific "said these actual words". As happens in cases like this, the ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος finds itself somewhere in the flow of transition between the moieties]
Κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς· ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου.
[We know that the abstract / general moiety comes first, and we know that ἔρχεσθαι is single moiety abstract / general, so this us being used here to more-or-less mark off the end of the first speech style. ἰάεσθαι is a concrete / specific moiety only word.]
9 Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας·
[See the imported quote above.]
καὶ λέγω τούτῳ, Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται· καὶ ἄλλῳ, Ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται· καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου, Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ.
[The abstract / general speech style here is structured grammatically with τούτῳ ... καὶ ἄλλῳ. The three words here - ἔρχεσθαι, πορεύεσθαι and ποιεῖν - are all single moiety words, so they don't need special word order constructions to make their meaning moieties clear.]
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Stephen Hughes » May 5th, 2017, 2:40 pm

Sorry to ask an obvious question so late, but is it generally recognised that there are two speech styles in Greek? When I explain my observation that there are vocabulary sets for each of the speech styles, am I building on existing knowledge, or should I be pointing out the speech styles too. I saw the posting on split focus and assumed that the dual speech styles were familiar enough, even if not known in that way. Apart from understanding how the moieties work in subordinate and relative clauses, Paul seemed to get the speech styles easily enough, if not tne moietied. The dual speech styles of Greek are pretty obvious, right, or is this another οὐκ οἶδα τι λέγεις topic? I wonder whether I walked too fast here?

Both the dual speech styles and their associated vocabulary are such basic features of the language, I'm sure they will come up again soon if people are not ready for them yet.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest