Word Order of Genitive (Enclitic) Pronouns

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2977
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Word Order in Mat 16,18

Post by Stephen Carlson » May 29th, 2013, 6:43 am

I would like to add that verb-first orders can be ambiguous between narrow focus on the verb and broad focus. It is a plausible hypothesis that the additional phonological effects of narrow focus on the verb can pull genitive pronominal clitics forward from a following NP, while mere broad focus does not.
RandallButh wrote:Mt 7.24-- here the MOY is attracted to the verb very like Wackernagel. More importantly, so is the AYTOY in spite of having an accent. Both of these pronouns have overcome the Hebrew threshhold somewhere along the line of transmission and become more traditionally Greek.
That's right. I would also claim that even some NPs can behave this way too. Dejan Matic has an article on this these "ConTop" (continuing topics).
RandallButh wrote:Mt 8.8--While I can see 'under my roof as the focal phrase and the MOY inelegantly moved out of the way, I would have expected MOY after 'roof'. So this would be a good probable case of a Focal enclitic. One would simply re-edit with a circumflex, despite not having EMOY.
That's certainly one possibility, which one could signal editorially as 'μοῦ. Another possibility, though I don't think it works here, is that the ἵνα itself can be emphasized. I think there's some evidence of this in 5th century Greek.
RandallButh wrote:Jn 8.31--The ἐστε is placed after the Focal 'my disciples'.
Yes, it is often the case that forms of εἰμί behave clitically. I would even suggest that this is so for such graphically accented forms as ἦν.
0 x


Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

MAubrey
Posts: 1023
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Word Order in Mat 16,18

Post by MAubrey » May 29th, 2013, 3:59 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:OK. I don't find the term very helpful. It sounds like there's only one sentence stress and it doesn't explain why clitics hardly ever get pulled out of subordinate clauses (or in other words why there can be multiple, relevant prosodic domains for clitics within a sentence).
I'll keep that in mind for our discussions. I first started using the term because it was accessible to the biblical scholar audience I was writing for when I did a term paper on clitic placement in the Septuagint a few years ago.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, "why does Wackernagel's law seem to work?" is a different question than I thought what you were asking about, and the answer to it is not really necessary to explain the word order phenomena. At some point, the explanation has to bottom out. I admit that Goldstein is a little cagey and perhaps over-cautious in not committing to the phonological mechanisms underlying it. In fact, explaining those mechanisms in detail would require another thesis, though there is Devine and Stevens's study of the intonation unit (their "major phrase"). At any rate, the discussion on pp. 109-111 is the place to look.
I would be inclined to say that answering the question about the cause of Wackernagel's law is the central question needing answered. But perhaps that's a result of differing research interests/goals? I'm not particularly interested in the interpretation of texts--or better, I'm really only interested in the interpretation of texts to the extent that they demonstrate something about language structure, and by extension, say something about language in general.

I think you're right about his apprehension being related to constraining his thesis, though I agree with you that there is perhaps more space for speculation than he allowed.
RandallButh wrote:Thanks Iver. Those are worth a quick discussion. Maybe Stephen and Michael can add a piece, too.
I'd say between Stephen and Randall, everything's covered rather nicely. I'm certainly in agreement with both of them.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Iver Larsen
Posts: 127
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am

Re: Word Order in Mat 16,18

Post by Iver Larsen » May 30th, 2013, 1:41 am

RandallButh wrote:
Iver Larsen wrote:...

Mt 2:6 ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ
Mt 2:15 Ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.
Mt 7:24 ὅστις ἀκούει μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους ... ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν
Mt 8:8 ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς...καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου
Mt 11:10 ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου
Mt 12:18 θήσω τὸ πνεῦμά μου
Mt 16:18 οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
etc. etc.
..
Lk 14:26,27,33 οὐ δύναται εἶναί μου μαθητής (He cannot be a disciple of me)
Jn 8:31 ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε (You are truly my disicples.)
Thanks Iver. Those are worth a quick discussion. Maybe Stephen and Michael can add a piece, too.
Mt 2.6--probably shows a lack of crossing a Hebrew source-text threshhold
Mt 2.15--same
Mt 7.24-- here the MOY is attracted to the verb very like Wackernagel. More importantly, so is the AYTOY in spite of having an accent. Both of these pronouns have overcome the Hebrew threshhold somewhere along the line of transmission and become more traditionally Greek.
Mt 8.8--While I can see 'under my roof as the focal phrase and the MOY inelegantly moved out of the way, I would have expected MOY after 'roof'. So this would be a good probable case of a Focal enclitic. One would simply re-edit with a circumflex, despite not having EMOY.
Mt 11.10--Again, Greek transmission has not overcome the Hebrew threshhold.
Mt 12.18--Again, Greek transmission has not overcome the Hebrew threshhold.
Mt 16.18--Wackernagel/LIPOC
Lk 14.26,27,33--Wackernagel/LIPOC
Jn 8.31--The ἐστε is placed after the Focal 'my disciples'.
It looks like I disagree with my learned friends here, probably because I am pragmatic and data-oriented rather than theory-oriented. I prefer a simpler explanation that can account for these word orders without having to rely on proposing Hebrew structure or a "law" that IMO is dubious or re-editing the text or suggesting that one particular pronoun behaves differently in terms of word order than other pronouns of the samne class.

For the last example, I don't find the placement of ἐστε in any way surprising. It carries so little semantic weight that it naturally occurs in the least prominent position at the end. What I was most interested in with those examples is the difference between the two noun phrases μου μαθητής and μαθηταί μου. I am suggesting that the placement of constituents in μαθηταί μου is governed by relative prominence, not prosody, nor a main or stressed verb. The first one: You cannot be MY disciple (but you are welcome to be a disciple of another rabbi) versus: you are truly my DISCIPLES (not just casual bystanders or followers). I am using capital letters to show stress in English. For the last one, there may not be stress on disciples, since this order may be the default one. But the lack of stress on MY still implies something. This is a theoretical issue that relates to the question of the existence of default order, but I won't go into that.

Let me ask about some data from Paul where I assume we are not talking about a possible Hebrew threshhold:

Rom 1:8 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου
Rom 11:14 εἴ πως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν σάρκα
1 Cor 4:16-17 παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε. διὰ τοῦτο ἔπεμψα ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον, ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν...ὃς ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει τὰς ὁδούς μου
1 Cor 8:13 εἰ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω.
1 Cor 9:2 γὰρ σφραγίς μου τῆς ἀποστολῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ.
1 Cot 9:27 ὑπωπιάζω μου τὸ σῶμα καὶ δουλαγωγῶ, μή πως ἄλλοις κηρύξας αὐτὸς ἀδόκιμος γένωμαι.
2 Cor 2:13 οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου
2 Cor 12:9 Ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου...καυχήσομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις μου
Col 2:1 ὅσοι οὐχ ἑόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί
2 Tim 1:12 πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι
2 Tim 3:10 Σὺ δὲ παρηκολούθησάς μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ
0 x

MAubrey
Posts: 1023
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Word Order in Mat 16,18

Post by MAubrey » May 30th, 2013, 10:17 am

Iver Larsen wrote:It looks like I disagree with my learned friends here, probably because I am pragmatic and data-oriented rather than theory-oriented. I prefer a simpler explanation that can account for these word orders without having to rely on proposing Hebrew structure or a "law" that IMO is dubious or re-editing the text or suggesting that one particular pronoun behaves differently in terms of word order than other pronouns of the samne class.
There's nothing particularly pragmatic or data-oriented about what you're claiming. What you're fundamentally missing is that these pronouns do not belong to the same class as other pronouns. They don't have an accent and the lack of that accent has been recognized as hugely significant for word order for at least 130 years.

Also, it is hardly fair to imply that Randall, Stephen, and myself are not data-oriented.
Iver Larsen wrote:What I was most interested in with those examples is the difference between the two noun phrases μου μαθητής and μαθηταί μου. I am suggesting that the placement of constituents in μαθηταί μου is governed by relative prominence, not prosody, nor a main or stressed verb. The first one: You cannot be MY disciple (but you are welcome to be a disciple of another rabbi) versus: you are truly my DISCIPLES (not just casual bystanders or followers). I am using capital letters to show stress in English. For the last one, there may not be stress on disciples, since this order may be the default one. But the lack of stress on MY still implies something
The kind of contrastive distinction you're proposing is precisely the kind that would receive phonological/prosodic prominence. You seem to be assuming that there is no relationship between prosody and prominence in Greek. In you data-oriented approach, have you collected any evidence for such a claim?
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Iver Larsen
Posts: 127
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am

Re: Word Order in Mat 16,18

Post by Iver Larsen » May 30th, 2013, 12:18 pm

Thanks, Mike,

I did not intend to imply that you are not concerned with data. My intention was to focus on my own lack of knowledge of the theories you are referring to all the time. I am constantly trying to chek whether theories adequately and as simply as possible explain the data.

But if you want to interact with the data I have given or other data that you supply, I am listening.
0 x

RandallButh
Posts: 1051
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Word Order in Mat 16,18

Post by RandallButh » June 1st, 2013, 2:05 am

Rom 1:8 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου
Rom 11:14 εἴ πως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν σάρκα
1 Cor 4:16-17 παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε. διὰ τοῦτο ἔπεμψα ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον, ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν...ὃς ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει τὰς ὁδούς μου
1 Cor 8:13 εἰ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω.
1 Cor 9:2 ἡ γὰρ σφραγίς μου τῆς ἀποστολῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ.
1 Cot 9:27 ὑπωπιάζω μου τὸ σῶμα καὶ δουλαγωγῶ, μή πως ἄλλοις κηρύξας αὐτὸς ἀδόκιμος γένωμαι.
2 Cor 2:13 οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου
2 Cor 12:9 Ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου...καυχήσομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις μου
Col 2:1 ὅσοι οὐχ ἑόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί
2 Tim 1:12 πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι
2 Tim 3:10 Σὺ δὲ παρηκολούθησάς μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ
Thanks Iver, some more for a fast read
Rom 1.8 has the mou in a default order, identifies noun "my God"
Rom 11.14 strengthens verb by having it attract MOY (it makes it feel like a 'middle')
1Cor 4: MOY follows focal MIMHTAI, ESTIN MOY are contextualizing (non-focal) leaving the 'beloved child' as descriptive rather than identified.
1Cor 8 both MOY default with noun, though second noun is fronted for focus
1Cor9.2 MOY is default with noun. MOre important, ESTE follows YMEIS as focal.
1Cor 9.27 MOY strengthens verb and gives 'middle' quality to clause rather than simply identify noun
2Cor 2.13 deafult with noun (identifies noun)
2Cor12.9 SOI strengthens verb, both MOY are default with both nouns
Col 2.1 default
2Tim 1.12 Estin follows focal complement. MOY default with noun.
2Tim3.10 MOY attracted to verb and strengthens it.
0 x

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2977
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Word Order of Genitive (Enclitic) Pronouns

Post by Stephen Carlson » June 1st, 2013, 3:47 am

(Mod note: I split and renamed the thread to account for the topic shift.)
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Iver Larsen
Posts: 127
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am

Re: Word Order in Mat 16,18

Post by Iver Larsen » June 1st, 2013, 12:23 pm

RandallButh wrote:
Rom 1:8 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου
Rom 11:14 εἴ πως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν σάρκα
1 Cor 4:16-17 παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε. διὰ τοῦτο ἔπεμψα ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον, ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν...ὃς ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει τὰς ὁδούς μου
1 Cor 8:13 εἰ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω.
1 Cor 9:2 ἡ γὰρ σφραγίς μου τῆς ἀποστολῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ.
1 Cot 9:27 ὑπωπιάζω μου τὸ σῶμα καὶ δουλαγωγῶ, μή πως ἄλλοις κηρύξας αὐτὸς ἀδόκιμος γένωμαι.
2 Cor 2:13 οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου
2 Cor 12:9 Ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου...καυχήσομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις μου
Col 2:1 ὅσοι οὐχ ἑόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί
2 Tim 1:12 πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι
2 Tim 3:10 Σὺ δὲ παρηκολούθησάς μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ
Thanks Iver, some more for a fast read
Rom 1.8 has the mou in a default order, identifies noun "my God"
Rom 11.14 strengthens verb by having it attract MOY (it makes it feel like a 'middle')
1Cor 4: MOY follows focal MIMHTAI, ESTIN MOY are contextualizing (non-focal) leaving the 'beloved child' as descriptive rather than identified.
1Cor 8 both MOY default with noun, though second noun is fronted for focus
1Cor9.2 MOY is default with noun. MOre important, ESTE follows YMEIS as focal.
1Cor 9.27 MOY strengthens verb and gives 'middle' quality to clause rather than simply identify noun
2Cor 2.13 deafult with noun (identifies noun)
2Cor12.9 SOI strengthens verb, both MOY are default with both nouns
Col 2.1 default
2Tim 1.12 Estin follows focal complement. MOY default with noun.
2Tim3.10 MOY attracted to verb and strengthens it.
Thank, you, Randall. I like to discuss actual data. As we are both aware, a linguistic analysis is not necessarily a matter of true or false, but which may have more explanatory power and which best accounts for all the data in a systematic way. There is quite a bit of leeway for different analyses.

I agree that the default order for mou like other possessive pronouns is after the head noun in the noun phrase. The Greek mou has a double function as far as I can see. It may be a personal pronoun and function as direct object for verbs that govern the genitive case. But it also functions as a possessive pronoun and when it does so, it is a constitutent of a noun phrase. I won't comment on the default order examples, since we are in agreement there.

I have a hard time attaching a clear meaning to a possessive pronoun strengthening the verb. In both Rom 11:14 and 1 Cor 9:27 there is an object in the accusative for the verb. I consider μου τὴν σάρκα to be an NP object for παραζηλώσω and μου τὸ σῶμα to be an NP object for ὑπωπιάζω. When you say that mou strengthens the verb are you suggesting that mou is not part of the NP? I don't "feel" these verbs as more middle apart from the fact that the object NP includes a 1. ps. pronoun. But that should be true regardless of the position of the pronoun. In 2 Tim 3:10 we have a verb that governs a dative object, and the text has no less than 9 such objects. Maybe the mou here is fronted in order to more easily be seen as implied for all the dative items. Or maybe there is a slight focus on MY teachings, etc. as opposed to other teachers. Timothy was closely following Paul and took part in all the activities mentioned. I don't see what it might mean that it strengthens the verb, nor do I see how that could explain the fronting.

In 2 Cor 12:9 you also say that the dative SOI strengthens the verb, but here we have a different syntax. The verb ἀρκέω has a dative "indirect object" or beneficiary role, so the SOI is in a direct and close relationship with the verb as a personal pronoun.

So, my problem is how to understand this strengthening, what it means and what it is based on.

My "feeling" is that the fronted MOU functions as fronting normally does, putting some relative emphasis on it. In English, I suggest a similar emphasis can be expressed my adding "own". Rom 11:14: If somehow I could provoke my own flesh/people to jealousy. (After having written this, I noticed that both NIV and GNB add "own") 1 Cor 9:27 I subdue my own body and make it my slave so that I who have proclaimed to others should not myself become disqualified/fail the test. 1 Cor 4:17 Timothy who is indeed my own beloved and trusted son in the Lord. (GNB: who is my own dear and faithful son). The same seems to apply to a fronted AUTOU. I could give examples, but let me stop here.

It may be worthwhile to quote Robertson a bit here:
We may be sure that when the long form ἐμοῦ occurs some slight emphasis is meant, as in ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ (Rom. 1:12). But we cannot feel sure that all emphasis is absent when the short form is used. Thus οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (Mt. 16:18), πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου (11:27). With prepositions (the “true” ones) the long form is used as in ancient Greek except with πρός, which uniformly has με even where emphasis is obvious

Robertson, A. T. (1919). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (681–682). Logos Bible Software.

The short (enclitic) form can show emphasis according to him, and I agree. I am not sure that the long forms necessarily show emphasis, because in the case of almost all prepositions, there is no choice.
0 x

RandallButh
Posts: 1051
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Word Order of Genitive (Enclitic) Pronouns

Post by RandallButh » June 1st, 2013, 3:46 pm

So, my problem is how to understand this strengthening, what it means and what it is based on.

My "feeling" is that the fronted MOU functions as fronting normally does, putting some relative emphasis on it.
We may be vocalizing the texts differently.
ἵνα γεμισθῇ μου ὁ οἲκος Λκ 14.23
I read MOY in the phonological verb phrase, according to the standard account of how Greek enclitics work, something passed on by the Greeks themselves.
In addition, I do not call this 'fronting' in the sense of putting the item in the pre-core pragmatic slot of its clause. Such fronting would have put the word in front of the verb. Here the word moves forward but does not go in front of the verb. It is very much like the pronouns in Hebrew that come between a verb and a Subject, what I call a 'quiet spot'.
0 x

Iver Larsen
Posts: 127
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am

Re: Word Order of Genitive (Enclitic) Pronouns

Post by Iver Larsen » June 1st, 2013, 5:52 pm

RandallButh wrote:
So, my problem is how to understand this strengthening, what it means and what it is based on.

My "feeling" is that the fronted MOU functions as fronting normally does, putting some relative emphasis on it.
We may be vocalizing the texts differently.
ἵνα γεμισθῇ μου ὁ οἲκος Λκ 14.23
I read MOY in the phonological verb phrase, according to the standard account of how Greek enclitics work, something passed on by the Greeks themselves.
In addition, I do not call this 'fronting' in the sense of putting the item in the pre-core pragmatic slot of its clause. Such fronting would have put the word in front of the verb. Here the word moves forward but does not go in front of the verb. It is very much like the pronouns in Hebrew that come between a verb and a Subject, what I call a 'quiet spot'.
Well, I don't know what you mean by vocalizing the text, but I am interested in how you analyze it. I can see that if you want to take mou as enclitic, you may want to make it phonologically dependent on the verb. I do not equate enclitic with unstressed, but I am not sure the old Greek enclitic is the same as what I am used to in general lingusitcis when we talk about clitics. I don't have a problem with assuming that it is (relatively) unstressed. We find primary and secondary stress in some languages, but I am not sure about Greek.

But what about the noun phrase? Is MOU in your analysis syntactically part of the verb phrase or part of the noun phrase or neither? It happens in languages that a phonological phrase does not always coincide with the syntactical/grammatical phrase, and that always causes problems for word divisions.

If you say that MOU is attracted to the verb in a few cases, how do you explain that in most cases it is not attracted? What is the determining factor? Do you agree that mou here functions as a possessive pronoun or not? Does your comment about Hebrew suggest that the order in the sentence here is more Hebrew than Greek? I know that portions of Luke reflect Hebrew, but I don't think you are suggesting that here, since the Hebrew "my house" would have the possessive suffix after the noun. (From the Modern Hebrew: לבוא למען ימלא ביתי...)

There is the added problem of textual uncertainty in this particular verse. Scrivener has ἵνα γεμισθῇ ὁ οἶκος μου. The same for the Byzantine tradition as seen in Robinson-Pierpont. So I am reluctant to put too much emphasis on the order in this text. We cannot be sure of the original.

For fronting, I was not talking about fronting at the clause level but at the phrase level, but I recognize that we have different perspectives on this, so I won't go into that.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Pragmatics and Discourse”