OK.cwconrad wrote:It has been so for me as well, although I've had little part in the discussion. It needs to be moved to "Syntax and Grammar" under "Greek Language and Linguistics." (Would some moderator do that for us, please?)
Stephen
OK.cwconrad wrote:It has been so for me as well, although I've had little part in the discussion. It needs to be moved to "Syntax and Grammar" under "Greek Language and Linguistics." (Would some moderator do that for us, please?)
That's not at all what I meant and I think it is wrong.David Lim wrote:Yes indeed. I agree that each one's use of a language is completely determined by one's predispositions, but that means that the use of the language is just as arbitrary as individuals' predispositions are arbitrary, even if there is high consensus in some areas.MAubrey wrote:The main difference between us seems to be my unwillingness to accept arbitrarity of language as an explanation. I don't believe that there's anything arbitrary about language. Everything is motivated somehow--even stylistic concerns that involve both "standard" and "substandard" Greek, though the motivations in each case may be different.
MAubrey wrote:If you'd like, it may be useful for us to move this either to the Syntax and Grammar section for discussion of the broader topic of definiteness or to the Koine texts section to examine how the article is used across larger sections of Greek text to mark the various participants involved.
Well...I haven't seen your example of the article used in a prepositional phrase and I have papers to write this weekend, so I don't have time to look. If you could repeat the specific example either here or in a new thread I can take a look at it when I have a chance, but I'm too busy this semester to go digging for it.David Lim wrote:Anything is fine with me. Perhaps you can start a new topic with your response to my example of the use of the article in a prepositional clause with "προς"?
Sure:MAubrey wrote:Well...I haven't seen your example of the article used in a prepositional phrase and I have papers to write this weekend, so I don't have time to look. If you could repeat the specific example either here or in a new thread I can take a look at it when I have a chance, but I'm too busy this semester to go digging for it.
David Lim wrote:Specifically, it also depends on which translators of the Septuagint. The only occurrences of the article with a proper name as the object of a prepositional clause with "προς" in the Septuagint are Jdg 11:3, Jdg 20:20, Jdg 20:30, Jdg 20:36, Jdg 20:37, 1 Sam 26:1, Ezra 8:15, Psa 144:1, Isa 7:2, Isa 28:18, Jer 39:14, Hos 9:10. ("αδαμ" is somewhat both a noun and a proper name, and the translator of Genesis does not use the article for other names, so I excluded "προς τον αδαμ"), whereas "προς τον" + X where X is a proper name is ubiquitous in the new testament. (I do not know how to check easily for independent instances of proper names that are used without the article.)David Lim wrote:For just one example, can you explain why "προς τον ιησουν" and never "προς ιησουν" is used in the new testament but the exact reverse is true in the Septuagint? (12-0 compared to 0-29) This is statistically significant to me and demonstrates that it is based on the speaker's preference or what he had "learnt", which clearly differed between the translators of the Septuagint and the authors of the new testament.
David Lim wrote:I do think that there were not any rules applicable in the example I gave, under the assumption that the translators of the Septuagint lived during the same time period, in which case their differing use of the article for proper names and that particular preposition (I have not looked at any others yet) are at odds with any rule that does not depend on the very user of the language. There is the possibility that some kind of rule came to be adhered to to some extent in later times but then the earlier absence of the rule implies the possibility of variation between different individuals who read the Septuagint so often.
Yes I would appreciate if anyone can check older Greek texts, as I do not have access to any means of searching for this.Iver Larsen wrote:First I would say that you cannot really compare pears with apples. It is correct that the LXX Greek is significantly different from the NT in its use of articles, but much of this can be explained by the fact that LXX is translation Greek, and a lack of article can simply reflect a lack of the Hebrew article in the text it translates. It is also possible that the time gap is significant, but to check that one would need to check older Greek with NT Greek. Maybe someone wants to do that?
I think the fact that "προς ιησουν" is never used in the new testament implies that your explanation is not the main one, because one would expect some instances of it given the following distribution of "ιησους" (number of verses in the new testament):Iver Larsen wrote:Second, Jesus in the NT is the key character. He will almost always be what Hoyle calls Hearer-Old and therefore is expected to have the article unless there is a good reason to make the reference salient or when the name is first introduced early in the gospels or in direct speech.
I would if I could, but unfortunately I have neither the time nor the tools to perform the search. If anyone can do this for the most common prepositions it would be very helpful. I omitted nouns that are not proper names because I think we all agree on when the article is used with them. I chose to study "προς" simply because it is the most common preposition used with proper names. But of course a better study has to include other prepositions.Iver Larsen wrote:Third, if you want to limit yourself to one preposition, like πρός, I suggest you do a systematic study of πρός followed by a noun or name with or without the article. But I think it is better to do a more comprehensive and systematic study of the use of the article with all nouns, including names, as Hoyle has done, and which you have apparently not yet done.
I think if one is going to test Iver's claim, one would need to look at each case of πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν in context and determine if it meets the criteria he has stated. These stats don't do that.David Lim wrote:I think the fact that "προς ιησουν" is never used in the new testament implies that your explanation is not the main one, because one would expect some instances of it given the following distribution of "ιησους" (number of verses in the new testament):Iver Larsen wrote:Second, Jesus in the NT is the key character. He will almost always be what Hoyle calls Hearer-Old and therefore is expected to have the article unless there is a good reason to make the reference salient or when the name is first introduced early in the gospels or in direct speech.
Case / Articular / Anarthous
NOM / 344 / 153
ACC / 60 / 68
DAT / 31 / 63
GEN / 36 / 189
In my view, Hoyle's explanation best accounts for why there is no article in those constructions. If you read Hoyle's points again and try to apply them, I think you will agree. Remember that one common use of the name without article is when the person is first introuduced. A person is rarely introduced in a prepositional phrase, at least in narratives.Iver Larsen wrote:Second, Jesus in the NT is the key character. He will almost always be what Hoyle calls Hearer-Old and therefore is expected to have the article unless there is a good reason to make the reference salient or when the name is first introduced early in the gospels or in direct speech.
I think the fact that "προς ιησουν" is never used in the new testament implies that your explanation is not the main one, because one would expect some instances of it given the following distribution of "ιησους" (number of verses in the new testament):
Case / Articular / Anarthous
NOM / 344 / 153
ACC / 60 / 68
DAT / 31 / 63
GEN / 36 / 189
Hi, Carl,Carl wrote: Does choice really always imply meaning? That's a question about Steve Runge's assertion that hasn't yet been completely answered for me.
How do we know that 'strong contrast' is in play, when the defining framework for the pair of clauses was "grace corresponding to grace"? Both are being called 'grace'.(Larsen) John 1:17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
This is not narrative, and there is a strong contrast between Moses and Jesus. Both are salient, while the law and truth are in contrastive focus.
I think we have to further specify what we mean when we talk about choice. I think we all agree that choice between two alternatives with mutually exclusive meaning implies a choice of meaning, excluding errors. However, there are too many instances of multiple alternatives with non-mutually exclusive meaning, in which case a choice between them may or may not be due to a choice of meaning on the part of the user of the language, and will differ between individuals. I doubt this is ever false in any language. I am myself often aware of English phrases which I use without any thought to the specific meaning they have compared to alternatives, but where I become aware only after having used it. In particular, a more "linguistics-aware" person may make much more careful choices of grammatical and semantic constructions compared to a typical user of a language.RandallButh wrote:Basically, the principle that choice implies meaning is a good one, even if several phrases may overlap a particular situation.
I agree that numbers are not enough, but other factors such as context and genre are too subjective that it may not help if we based our discussion on those. I would instead say that much of what you call genre and context are actually style, inasmuch as genres gives us different ways of expressing the same content. Our style may also include imposing different contexts to achieve different rates of communication. For example I may choose to provide as much detail as possible, whether or not it is asked for, or I may choose to say as much as possible in the least number of words, in which case many things will be omitted due to choice of style and not meaning.Iver Larsen wrote:In my view, Hoyle's explanation best accounts for why there is no article in those constructions. If you read Hoyle's points again and try to apply them, I think you will agree. Remember that one common use of the name without article is when the person is first introuduced. A person is rarely introduced in a prepositional phrase, at least in narratives.David Lim wrote:I think the fact that "προς ιησουν" is never used in the new testament implies that your explanation is not the main one, because one would expect some instances of it given the following distribution of "ιησους" (number of verses in the new testament):Iver Larsen wrote:Second, Jesus in the NT is the key character. He will almost always be what Hoyle calls Hearer-Old and therefore is expected to have the article unless there is a good reason to make the reference salient or when the name is first introduced early in the gospels or in direct speech.
Case / Articular / Anarthous
NOM / 344 / 153
ACC / 60 / 68
DAT / 31 / 63
GEN / 36 / 189
There are 29 instances of Ἰησοῦς following a preposition and preceded by the article. There are 25 instances where the article is not present. It is not enough to count numbers. You need to look at context and genre. 22 of the 29 occur in the gospels which are mainly narrative, with only 2 in Paul's letters. Similarly, only 5 of those without article occur in the gospels. and 11 in Paul's letters.
Well, the article I found said this:Iver Larsen wrote:Mat 26:51 καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς τῶν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἀπέσπασεν τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ
Here one might have expected the article, but it looks llike the author wanted to make Jesus salient, possibly because we have one of the disciples of Jesus who was acting against the wishes of Jesus. Matthew might have intended to suggest that such behaviour could be expected by the disciples of other rabbis, but not of Jesus. As comparison Rev 20:4 has the article before Christ.
This pattern is what I was referring to when I compared "μετα" and "προς" with proper names. Of course, I only had the time to briefly scan the article so I did not verify any claim.Steve Janssen wrote:Another idiom is the use of names with the preposition μετα. Names never have the article with μετα, though titles may. This can be seen in Matt 2:11; 4:21; 8:11; 26:69, 71; Mark 1:29; Acts 7:45; Galatians 2:1; Philippians 4:3; and Hebrews 11:9.
With an IANAL (I am not a linguist) warning...David Lim wrote: It supports my claim that there are many instances of proper names that are part of some idiomatic expression and therefore no rules can explain the presence or absence of the article except for the idiomatic expression itself, which I would simply say is what the speaker has learnt "sounds nice".