Is this true of participles?

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Post Reply
jdhadwin
Posts: 29
Joined: August 25th, 2015, 12:48 pm

Is this true of participles?

Post by jdhadwin » September 1st, 2015, 12:21 am

I found this quote on a website that discusses Koine participles. Is what XXXX said true?
Here is a quote from Mr. XXXX response to one of the questions I emailed him.
Regarding the difference between the present participle and the present tense, there is a distinct difference. When a writer uses the participle he does not envisage the termination of the action. It will go on and on indefinitely, or be repeated continuously, if it is a punctilear action… the present tense is used the writer sees the action as going on to be completed. It is not an open-ended action, the way that the participle is.
Thanks,

~John
0 x



RandallButh
Posts: 944
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Is this true of participles?

Post by RandallButh » September 1st, 2015, 4:57 am

No, it is not true as literally stated. A participle's action does not go 'on and on indefinitely'. LOL.

For example, ...λἐγων does not describe something that never ends. Matt 3.1 does not picture a never-ending preaching. Mt 8.5 does not have an 'on and on indefinitely' request.
The continuative participle is an adjective that looks at the process of a verb without considering the end points. It typically overlaps its context in time.
0 x

jdhadwin
Posts: 29
Joined: August 25th, 2015, 12:48 pm

Re: Is this true of participles?

Post by jdhadwin » September 1st, 2015, 8:08 am

I've never heard of this before. I found it in none of the literature. Whether this was true-ish of Greek participles I couldn't be sure. Spanish has two tenses for the past tense, one for ongoing past action (broke a glass every Saturday), and one for stuff that has an apparent conclusion or immediate completion (broke a glass yesterday). From this guy's write-up, I though Greek might be doing the same with participles.

Thanks,

~John
0 x

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 759
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Is this true of participles?

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » September 1st, 2015, 12:03 pm

The full quote "attributed" to L. XXXX is not available for reading, note: "if it is a punctilear action… the present tense"
“Regarding the difference between the present participle and the present tense, there is a distinct difference. When a writer uses the participle he does not envisage the termination of the action. It will go on and on indefinitely, or be repeated continuously, if it is a punctilear action… the present tense is used the writer sees the action as going on to be completed. It is not an open-ended action, the way that the participle is.

1 John 3:8 uses the participle, not the tense, so that its meaning is: “he that goes-on-sinning is of the devil.” It refers to a habitual action. If John had used the present tense, then he would have been referring to a particular situation, a one-off situation, and mean: “he that sins [in this particular instance] is of the devil.” The one-off situation could be an action proposed by some professing Christian leader to allow a man to divorce his wife.

John would be totally opposed to such an action taking place. So the use of the present tense, in this instance, would be a strong warning to the Church leader not to go ahead with his proposed, one-off action. So in using the present tense, the writer is always thinking of a specific action in the present time (or near future). If he used the participle then he would be saying that if the Church leader goes-on-divorcing [i.e., open-endedly] Christian couples, as a habit or policy, then he is of the devil.”
http://morechristlike.com/koine-greek-p ... articiple/

See also Dana & Manty p. 186 "the static present" ... "may be used to represent a condition which is assumed as perpetually exisiting" example 1 John 3:8.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

RandallButh
Posts: 944
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Is this true of participles?

Post by RandallButh » September 1st, 2015, 1:20 pm

Sounds like L. XXXX. may not have gotten Greek any better than he didn't get Hebrew.

When an author leads to confusion it is better just to move on and ignore rather than try to straighten things out.
0 x

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 759
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Is this true of participles?

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » September 1st, 2015, 1:40 pm

RandallButh wrote:Sounds like L. XXXX may not have gotten Greek any better than he didn't get Hebrew.

When an author leads to confusion it is better just to move on and ignore rather than try to straighten things out.
Randall,

This part caught my eye ...
1John 3:8 uses the participle, not the tense, so that its meaning is: “he that goes-on-sinning is of the devil.” It refers to a habitual action.
… becuasue it sounds quite similar but not identical to something about 1Jn 3:8 I heard being tosssed about in seminary forty years ago. It was a text that came up to illustrate either present tense or present participles but I don't recall which. A bit of tradional grammar which becomes distorted over time. I find it intresting to try and track down the source for ideas like this.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 759
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Is this true of participles?

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » September 1st, 2015, 3:43 pm

From a paper by Iver Larsen:
[John 8] v. 34:  πεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν  μὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός
ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας. The Jesus responded to them: Surely, I am telling you that every person
who lives in/habitually does sin is a slave of sin.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS AN AID TO BIBLE TRANSLATION, Iver Larsen, p14.
This question has nothing to do with Iver's paper other than his translation. This is essentially the idea that was being circulated: πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν = "every person who lives in/habitually does sin" which is a example of ὁ ποιῶν where there are no limits specified on the time frame. On the otherhand, the statement found on the web site goes way beyond this and leads to all kinds of exgetical problems.
Last edited by Stirling Bartholomew on September 1st, 2015, 4:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3430
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Is this true of participles?

Post by Jonathan Robie » September 1st, 2015, 3:57 pm

On B-Greek, we don't discuss doctrine. We don't claim that any web site is full of false doctrine or true doctrine or whatever. People motivated by doctrine are rarely good sources for language instruction. Naming specific people or web sites that are highly doctrinal here tends to be troll bait, I'd rather not do anything to encourage them to head this way.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

jdhadwin
Posts: 29
Joined: August 25th, 2015, 12:48 pm

Re: Is this true of participles?

Post by jdhadwin » September 1st, 2015, 3:58 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:On B-Greek, we don't discuss doctrine. We don't claim that any web site is full of false doctrine or true doctrine or whatever. People motivated by doctrine are rarely good sources for language instruction. Naming specific people or web sites that are highly doctrinal here tends to be troll bait, I'd rather not do anything to encourage them to head this way.
Roger that.
Last edited by jdhadwin on September 1st, 2015, 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3430
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Is this true of participles?

Post by Jonathan Robie » September 1st, 2015, 4:01 pm

I just edited posts to remove names and deleted one.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Post Reply