Accusative case 1 John 1:1

How can I best learn new vocabulary items? What aids are there and what pitfalls should be avoided? How does a beginner learn to use a lexicon?
Post Reply
John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by John Brainard » February 4th, 2013, 4:10 pm

ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, ἀκηκόαμεν, ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς

The first neuter relative pronoun is marked as being in the Nominative case.

Those that follow are in the accusative case.

Here is my question and it is based upon the fact that they are all identical.

Are the accusatives determined by context or am I missing something? :D

John

timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 197
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon » February 4th, 2013, 5:34 pm

Determined by context.

John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by John Brainard » February 4th, 2013, 5:41 pm

Thank you.

John

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2519
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 4th, 2013, 5:44 pm

Context helps of course, but here the syntax is a pretty clear guide:

The first verb ἦν is intransitive; it does not take an accusative object, so ὅ must be nominative.

The second verb ἀκηκόαμεν is transitive, but its subject must be first-person masculine plural. Since ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject and so is the expected direct object in the accusative. Ditto for ἑωράκαμεν and ἐθεασάμεθα.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by John Brainard » February 4th, 2013, 5:51 pm

Stephenson Carlson
Since ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject
Good stuff. This is very helpful

John

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by David Lim » February 5th, 2013, 1:55 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:Context helps of course, but here the syntax is a pretty clear guide:

The first verb ἦν is intransitive; it does not take an accusative object, so ὅ must be nominative.

The second verb ἀκηκόαμεν is transitive, but its subject must be first-person masculine plural. Since ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject and so is the expected direct object in the accusative. Ditto for ἑωράκαμεν and ἐθεασάμεθα.
Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
δαυιδ λιμ

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2519
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 5th, 2013, 2:12 am

David Lim wrote:Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
Well, yeah, but we're talking about the neuter singular relative pronoun (ὅς, ἥ,) ὅ, not the masculine singular article.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by David Lim » February 5th, 2013, 2:24 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
Well, yeah, but we're talking about the neuter singular relative pronoun (ὅς, ἥ,) ὅ, not the masculine singular article.
Yup, they would be nicely differentiated in a modern printed edition, but I'm assuming that the original writers didn't write accents. Anyway sorry if my comment was off-topic.
δαυιδ λιμ

John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by John Brainard » February 5th, 2013, 9:48 am

David Lim
Yup, they would be nicely differentiated in a modern printed edition, but I'm assuming that the original writers didn't write accents. Anyway sorry if my comment was off-topic.
I can see how this could happen. Was helpful.

John

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2519
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 5th, 2013, 11:15 am

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
Well, yeah, but we're talking about the neuter singular relative pronoun (ὅς, ἥ,) ὅ, not the masculine singular article.
Yup, they would be nicely differentiated in a modern printed edition, but I'm assuming that the original writers didn't write accents. Anyway sorry if my comment was off-topic.
They may not have written accents, but they are still relative pronouns just the same. The syntax does not support their being articles (e.g. no following particle like μέν or δέ).
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest