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?

Accusative case 1 John 1:1

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

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Postby timothy_p_mcmahon » February 4th, 2013, 5:34 pm

Determined by context.
timothy_p_mcmahon
 
Posts: 133
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

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

Thank you.

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

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Postby 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. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

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

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Postby 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
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Postby 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. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Postby 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
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

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

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Postby 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. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University


Return to Vocabulary

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest