ἐς φῶς σὸν
Posted: March 15th, 2014, 8:02 pm
What does ἐς φῶς σὸν mean?
Context:
ἐς φῶς σὸν καταστῆσαι βίον
Euripides Trag., Alcestis.
Context:
ἐς φῶς σὸν καταστῆσαι βίον
Euripides Trag., Alcestis.
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2403
That's not much context. Better:Mike Burke wrote:What does ἐς φῶς σὸν mean?
Context:
ἐς φῶς σὸν καταστῆσαι βίον
Euripides Trag., Alcestis.
Thank you.Admetus is mourning the loss of Alcestis, and he is referencing Orpheus' journey to the Underworld to rescue Eurydice. stating that if he could he would go to the Underworld to bring her back (but then goes on to encourage her to wait for him). He says "Neither the dog of Pluto nor soul-escorting Charon at his oar would hold me back before I restored your life to the light."
So, σὀν modifies βίον, and ἐς φῶς is a prepositional phrase in which σὀν is not included.
Mike, you really ought to make an effort really to learn some Greek. That is one of the requirements for people participating on this list, that they really are making such an effort in good faith.
Mike, some of us are very suspicious about your "trying." Looking back over your posts, for years you have asked the same sort of elementary questions, over and over, and show no progress at all. All of us who have studied the languages, and especially those of us who teach them, expect to see a certain measure of progress in those who study, even if it's on the slow side. You show no measurable progress at all.Mike Burke wrote:
Thank you.
I am trying.
What I don't understand here is how καταστῆσαι becomes "restored"?
I thought it meant something like "make," "appoint," or "ordain," and figured it's meaning here must be modified by some preceding word or phrase, but I still don't see how "make" becomes "restore"?
And isn't the translation of καταστῆσαι as "restore" in Euripides Trag., Alcestis a good example of "pragmatic extension"?There is also something called "pragmatic extension," which simply means that words can be used in unusual senses when sufficiently so modified by context.
I assume you mean πἀλιν? From the LSJ:Mike Burke wrote:And isn't the translation of καταστῆσαι as "restore" in Euripides Trag., Alcestis a good example of "pragmatic extension"?There is also something called "pragmatic extension," which simply means that words can be used in unusual senses when sufficiently so modified by context.
That's the essence of my question here.
I want to know if the meaning of being restored to a previous state is inherent in the word καταστῆσαι, or if the meaning of the word has been modified by something in the context here.
I started this topic heading because I suspect it has been modified by context here, and I'd like to know which word does the modifying (as I don't see πάλι.)
No, I meant πάλι, which is defined in my Greek dictionary as meaning "again."Barry Hofstetter wrote:I assume you mean πἀλιν?
Actually, it was that citation that started me thinking about this (and I assumed πἀλιν meant something like "πάλι.")Barry Hofstetter wrote:without πάλιν, replace, restore, ἐς φῶς σὸν κ. βίον E.Alc.362...Please note that they list the specific passage you cited
That's not true.Barry Hofstetter wrote:BTW, there is no such thing as "inherent" meaning in a word -- only usage in context.
I want to understand that citation better, and I'd like to know what you (and they) saw.Barry Hofstetter wrote:Also, I translated it as "restore" without looking at the LSJ, so that what I apparently saw what they also saw.
Because of the context. The quotation is from a story. It's not referring to a theological, metaphysical, transcendent or any other reality, but the in-story reality. In that reality the servant was first faithful in few things and therefore the master will set him over lots of things. No theological secrets here. It's not about syntax or semantics but genre and discourse. I know some people have great difficulties understanding that the Scriptures is human communication and works in the same way than all other communication. But there are no hidden secrets in the language (words, syntax) there. If there are, you have to argue why the speaker or writer wanted it to be there and how it relates to his explicit message. "God wanted it to be there" isn't an explanation for semantics, syntax or grammar, even though many (including me) believe that God wanted the text to be that way. Modern systematic theology is (almost?) always the worst and wrong explanation.Mike Burke wrote: I know some professing Christians who believe in the pre-existence of the soul, and I suspect they'd be delighted if ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ἦς πιστός, ἐπὶ πολλῶν σε καταστήσω could legitimately be translated "you have been faithful over a few things, I will again set you over many."
Is that a legitamate translation?
If not, why not?
So the word καταστήσω doesn't imply repetition?Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:Because of the context