In Acts 26L16b-17, we have:
EIS TOUTO GAR WFQHN SOI, .....
EXAIROUMENOS SE EK TOU LAOU
KAI EK TWN EQNWN,
EIS hOUS EGW APOSTELLW SE.
Is there any grammatical reason that the antecedent of the relative pronoun hOUS
should be TWN EQNWN, rather than both TOU LAOU and TWN EQNWN?
Moon Jung
Acts 26:16b-17: The antecedent of the relative pronoun
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Comparison for looking at an antecedent of the relative pron
Compare this thread:
Antecedent of οἷς in Philippians 2:15
Antecedent of οἷς in Philippians 2:15
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Acts 26:16b-17: The antecedent of the relative pronoun
Stephen, thanks for the reference. I read it.
Carl's explanation makes a perfect sense, though I did not know the term
constructio ad sensum.
But in my case, I am asking how the following two cases would be different:
(1) EK TOUS LAOU KAI EK TWN EQNWN, EIS hOUS EGW....
(2) EK TOUS LAOU KAI TWN EQNWN, EIS hOUS EGW ..
In the case of (2), the antecedent is clear. In the case of (1), it is not clear because EK is repeated.
Moon Jung
Carl's explanation makes a perfect sense, though I did not know the term
constructio ad sensum.
But in my case, I am asking how the following two cases would be different:
(1) EK TOUS LAOU KAI EK TWN EQNWN, EIS hOUS EGW....
(2) EK TOUS LAOU KAI TWN EQNWN, EIS hOUS EGW ..
In the case of (2), the antecedent is clear. In the case of (1), it is not clear because EK is repeated.
Moon Jung
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Glossary of terms, ommision/addition of ἐκ
Stephen Hughes wrote:You can find an explanation of the term in the list published by David P. Smith.Constructio ad Sensum – A construction in which the sense of a word or phrase is considered and not necessarily the grammatical form. For instance a singular noun which refers to a number of people, e.g., ὄχλος, will often take a plural verb. The agreement is to the sense of the noun and not its form. See Solecism.Acts 26:17 (2005 Byzantine text-form) wrote:ἐξαιρούμενός σε ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν, εἰς οὓς ἐγὼ σε ἀποστέλλω,In my opinion, no more than an opinion, the language is not so mechanical as to make a difference based on the ommision or addition of prepositions like this. I think of this type of prepositional ommission and addition in terms of style rather than meaning. Besides, here, σε is singular.Acts 26:17 (SBL text-form) wrote:ἐξαιρούμενός σε ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν, εἰς οὓς ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω σε,
You've probably already cosidered it yourself, but let me put the other use of ἐξαιρεῖν with ἐκ and two groups of people up here for public consideration:Although it is referring to one and the same situation, it is never-the-less referring to two distinct (interested) parties. (The differences between Byzantine and eclectic text-forms are other things, and not the ommission or addition of an ἐκ).Acts 12:11 (2005 Byzantine text-form) wrote:Καὶ ὁ Πέτρος, γενόμενος ἐν ἑαυτῷ, εἶπεν, Νῦν οἶδα ἀληθῶς ὅτι ἐξαπέστειλεν κύριος τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐξείλετό με ἐκ χειρὸς Ἡρῴδου καὶ πάσης τῆς προσδοκίας τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Acts 26:16b-17: The antecedent of the relative pronoun
Stephen, perfect explanation. I got it.
In the case of Acts 26:16b-17, I should have known that
the relative pronoun, as an anaphoric pronoun like "this", "that", "it", "they", etc,
can refer to anything that has been introduced to the context so far,
as long as the reader can identify the referent.
I should have remembered the class I once took about "discourse analysis" ^^
Moon Jung
In the case of Acts 26:16b-17, I should have known that
the relative pronoun, as an anaphoric pronoun like "this", "that", "it", "they", etc,
can refer to anything that has been introduced to the context so far,
as long as the reader can identify the referent.
I should have remembered the class I once took about "discourse analysis" ^^
Moon Jung
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Not discourse analysis, a singular personal pronoun
Thank you for your praise, it is a pity that it is so undeserved. The best thing that I could do was to refer you to the scholarship of others more capable than myself.moon wrote:I should have remembered the class I once took about "discourse analysis" ^^
I'm sorry also for my ignorance, but I have only hear the name discourse analysis, but have no idea what it is. I learnt my Greek from experienced teachers, who were nearing retirement. They were for the most part educated in the 1940's and 1950's. I learnt Greek in the 1980's and 1990's. I guess that discourse analysis is something that has arisen in the last quarter century after my teachers had left research and entered teaching. You are fortunate to have taken your studies in this current age of social progress and technological advancement.
What I meant by saying that since σε was singular is that there couldn't really be a distinction between
- ἐξαιρεῖσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Α καὶ ἐκ τῶν Β and
ἐξαιρεῖσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Α καὶ τῶν Β
- (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ) ἐξαιρούμενος σε πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν.
If the pronoun were plural, viz.
- (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ) ἐξαιρούμενος ὑμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν
- (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ) ἐξαιρούμενος τίνας ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους [ὑμᾶς] (=τοὺς λοιποὺς) ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν
- (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ) ἐξαιρούμενος ὑμᾶς πάντας πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν
- (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ) ἐξαιρούμενος ὑμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)