Romans 4:25 - antecedent of ὃς

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Romans 4:25 - antecedent of ὃς

Post by Mark Lightman » March 12th, 2012, 10:47 pm

Jonathan ἔγραψε: Could anyone give an equally good answer without meta-language? Or with meta-language in Greek?
ἡ μἐν οὖν προέλευσις τοῦ «ὃς» τὸ «Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον» ἐστιν. τὸ γὰρ ὑποτακτικὸν ἄρθρον ἔχει τὸ μὲν γένος (ἀρσενικὸν) τῆς προελεύσεως, τὸν δὲ ἀριθμὸν (ἑνικὸν,) τὴν δὲ πτῶσιν δ’οὔ. ἡ γὰρ πτῶσις τοῦ υ.α. ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς γραμματικῆς σχέσεως αὐτοῦ. τὸ δὲ «ὃς» τὸ ὑποκείμενον τοῦ ρήματος τοῦ «παρεδόθη» ἐστιν. ὀνομαστικὸν οὖν ἐστιν, αἰτιατικὸν δ’οὔ.

I never said that we could not use ANY metalanguage in English.
0 x



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

Re: Romans 4:25 - antecedent of ὃς

Post by David Lim » March 13th, 2012, 12:38 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:Could anyone give an equally good answer without meta-language? Or with meta-language in Greek?
I'd say it's impossible because your question included the meta-language term "antecedent."
But that's a characteristic of language and discourse, not just a characteristic of my question.

It's hard for me to discuss the relationships among these clauses without some meta-language, because the fundamental confusion involves "cases" and "agreement" and identifying the antecedent", where everything in quotes is a term from the meta-language. Somehow, we need a way to discuss the relationship between these things to see "how" the text says something.
I would say that saying "antecedent" already involves an assumption that it must be antecedent, which may not always be the case with relative pronouns as they can also be used as indefinite relative pronouns (which have no antecedents). However, if you asked "who does "ος" refer to?" (or in Greek), we might answer "τις παρεδοθη δια τα παραπτωματα ημων και ηγερθη δια την δικαιωσιν ημων ιησους ο κυριος υμων παρεδοθη", and the reason for the case should be clear without having to talk about it. I am not sure some terms are absolutely necessary at the start, though they might become useful to advanced learners of a language. For instance I do not remember learning "singular" and "plural" when I was very young. We just have to learn "one ball, two balls, three balls..." first, and we automatically connect the "s" to the "number". And I did not know a lot of grammatical categories until I started learning Greek, but I had already been using them perfectly in English. And there was an earlier instance of the rule for relative pronouns (which is also true in English; "who", "whom", "to whom", "whose",) in which "οις μελλει λογιζεσθαι τοις πιστευουσιν" is referring to "ημας". τισιν μελλει λογιζεσθαι.. ημιν μελλει λογιζεσθαι.. ημιν οι πιστευουσιν
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

RandallButh
Posts: 1035
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Romans 4:25 - antecedent of ὃς

Post by RandallButh » March 13th, 2012, 5:03 am

by Jonathan Robie » March 13th, 2012, 4:59 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:

Jonathan Robie wrote:Could anyone give an equally good answer without meta-language? Or with meta-language in Greek?



I'd say it's impossible because your question included the meta-language term "antecedent."



But that's a characteristic of language and discourse, not just a characteristic of my question.

It's hard for me to discuss the relationships among these clauses without some meta-language, because the fundamental confusion involves "cases" and "agreement" and identifying the antecedent", where everything in quotes is a term from the meta-language. Somehow, we need a way to discuss the relationship between these things to see "how" the text says something.

First, Jonathan's first question was easy,
τίς ἐστιν τὸ ὅς; ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν κύριον παρεδόθη; οὐχί. ἆρα οὖν ὀ Ἰησούς παρεδόθη; ναί, βεβαίως.

Secondly, metalanguage becomes more valuable at higher levels, and at higher levels it is less distracting. Adults want it at lower levels and they usually assume that they will learn a language thru the metalanguage. That is a false step and a deadend, and SLA has been aware of that for half a century.

Finally, FTR, I am not 100% direct method. In a classroom with one shared language a person can often speed things up by using the shared language up to about 10% of the time. If the other language grows to much more than 10%, then the teachers need to ask themselves what they are teaching, because they are slowing down the language learning. (NB: linguistics is normally conducted in a major language, like English, and often on English, but it is not the way that any ESL theorist recommends learning English. Linguistics is good, but it is not pedagogy.)
0 x

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Romans 4:25 - antecedent of ὃς

Post by cwconrad » March 13th, 2012, 6:13 am

Mark Lightman wrote:
Jonathan ἔγραψε: Could anyone give an equally good answer without meta-language? Or with meta-language in Greek?
ἡ μἐν οὖν προέλευσις τοῦ «ὃς» τὸ «Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον» ἐστιν. τὸ γὰρ ὑποτακτικὸν ἄρθρον ἔχει τὸ μὲν γένος (ἀρσενικὸν) τῆς προελεύσεως, τὸν δὲ ἀριθμὸν (ἑνικὸν,) τὴν δὲ πτῶσιν δ’οὔ. ἡ γὰρ πτῶσις τοῦ υ.α. ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς γραμματικῆς σχέσεως αὐτοῦ. τὸ δὲ «ὃς» τὸ ὑποκείμενον τοῦ ρήματος τοῦ «παρεδόθη» ἐστιν. ὀνομαστικὸν οὖν ἐστιν, αἰτιατικὸν δ’οὔ.

I never said that we could not use ANY metalanguage in English.
So -- a stab at Greek metalanguage indicating pretty well the disdain for metalanguage. It also illustrates well, I think, how "metalanguage" came to be designated, "λαλία τῆς τῆς λαλίας λαλίας" -- "terrifyingly tedious talk about talk about talk." This exemplifies perfectly an earlier suggestion that what this involves is English converted into Greek in English word-order.
προέλευσις? New coinage, but I don't really think it would mean "antecedent" so much as "precedence" as a process of preceding. This also raises anew my Juvenal question: Who's going to look over the shoulder of the τριτημεθοδεύτης?

I rather think that "explication de texte" belongs in a different category from lower-level pedagogy. We do have our subforum, "What does this text mean?" for beginners who can't wait to ask questions about real GNT texts until they've reached the level of proficiency that we ask of those involved in the Koine Greek/New Testament subforum. In the present instance, when I saw Jonathan's question and looked at the sequence from verse 24 to verse 25, the "ἀνόητοι ... προεγράφη" text jumped out at me as the fitting come-back, and I converted it to the purpose at hand as a "graphic illustration" of what Jonathan should have observed in a careful reading of the text in question.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Romans 4:25 - antecedent of ὃς

Post by Mark Lightman » March 13th, 2012, 1:04 pm

Carl: So -- a stab at Greek metalanguage indicating pretty well the disdain for metalanguage. It also illustrates well, I think, how "metalanguage" came to be designated, "λαλία τῆς τῆς λαλίας λαλίας" -- "terrifyingly tedious talk about talk about talk." This exemplifies perfectly an earlier suggestion that what this involves is English converted into Greek in English word-order.
Good point, ὦ μακάριε Κᾶρλε. And Method 7 is talking about Greek with English metalanguage that has been influenced by Greek word order:

Method 7 to Jonathan: The, indeed, of-the-ὃς antecedent τὸν κύριον is.
προέλευσις? New coinage, but I don't really think it would mean "antecedent" so much as "precedence" as a process of preceding.
Point taken. I took a stab at making it up. προελεύσμα? προυλεύσμα? πρόθεσις? πρόθηκα? Except relatives sometimes come AFTER their antecedents? τὸ σημαινόμενον? What would you suggest? I suppose we could look it up in one of Niko’s recommended Greek Greek grammars, but linguists prefer to make up their own terminology wherever possible.
This also raises anew my Juvenal question: Who's going to look over the shoulder of the τριτημεθοδεύτης?
You are doing just fine, thanks. :D
Buth: First, Jonathan's first question was easy,
τίς ἐστιν τὸ ὅς; ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν κύριον παρεδόθη; οὐχί. ἆρα οὖν ὀ Ἰησούς παρεδόθη; ναί, βεβαίως.
Now, THAT’S the way to talk about Greek in Greek! εὖγε!
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”