Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

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.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2869
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by Stephen Carlson » January 11th, 2012, 7:12 pm

Oblique second-person pronoun can be either emphatic or enclitic, and editors indicate how they interpret them by accenting the former and not the latter. In some cases, however, I have to wonder about the editorial judgment.

The example I'm thinking of is accented in the Nestle-Aland edition as follows:
Luke 1:13, NA wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει υἱόν σοι,
It seems to me that if σοι really were enclitic, then it should follow Wackernagel-Fraenkel's Law and be located in the second position of the colon, which is right after the verb in this case, as if:
Luke 1:13, enclitic σοι wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει σοι υἱόν,
"And your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son."
However, the second-person dative pronoun is in the wrong place for an enclitic, but perfectly fine for an "emphatic" pronoun. Thus, it should be accented like this:
Luke 1:13, emphatic σοί wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει υἱὸν σοί,
"And your wife Elizabeth will bear a son to you.
Any thoughts on the accentuation of Luke 1:13? (I haven't checked other editions.)

Stephen
Last edited by Stephen Carlson on January 11th, 2012, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo
0 x



Ken M. Penner
Posts: 799
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by Ken M. Penner » January 11th, 2012, 10:40 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote: It seems to me that if σοι really were enclitic, then it should follow Wackernagel-Fraenkel's Law and be located in the second position of the colon, which is right after the verb in this case, as if:
Luke 1:13, enclitic σοι wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει σοι υἱόν,
"And your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son."
All I have to contribute is the parallel from Genesis 17:19 that is probably influencing Luke:
Genesis 17:19 wrote:ἰδοὺ Σαρρα ἡ γυνή σου τέξεταί σοι υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ισαακ
Luke 1:13 wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει υἱόν σοι, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννην
0 x
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2869
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by Stephen Carlson » January 11th, 2012, 11:06 pm

Ken M. Penner wrote:All I have to contribute is the parallel from Genesis 17:19 that is probably influencing Luke
And the translator of Genesis gets it right. ;)

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

MAubrey
Posts: 1002
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by MAubrey » January 12th, 2012, 2:13 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:Oblique second-person pronoun can be either emphatic or enclitic, and editors indicate how they interpret them by accenting the former and not the latter. In some cases, however, I have to wonder about the editorial judgment.

The example I'm thinking of is accented in the Nestle-Aland edition as follows:
Luke 1:13, NA wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει υἱόν σοι,
It seems to me that if σοι really were enclitic, then it should follow Wackernagel-Fraenkel's Law and be located in the second position of the colon, which is right after the verb in this case, as if:
Luke 1:13, enclitic σοι wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει σοι υἱόν,
"And your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son."
However, the second-person dative pronoun is in the wrong place for an enclitic, but perfectly fine for an "emphatic" pronoun. Thus, it should be accented like this:
Luke 1:13, emphatic σοί wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει υἱὸν σοί,
"And your wife Elizabeth will bear a son to you.
Any thoughts on the accentuation of Luke 1:13? (I haven't checked other editions.)

Stephen
I've looked through Alford, Tischendorf, Tregelles, SBLGNT, Hodge-Farsted, Robinson-Pierpont and they all have the same accentuation.

The other alternative would be that Mark Janse's suggestion that Wackernagel's is a prosodic phenomena is correct and that υἱόν receives the sentence accent for the clause and that's where the enclitic attaches--but of course, you and I have discussed this question quite a bit already. If that's correct, then we have a shift in interpretation between Genesis 17:19 and here:

Genesis 17:19 ἰδοὺ Σαρρα ἡ γυνή σου τέξεταί σοι υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ισαακ
Luke 1:13καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει υἱόν σοι, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννην

The Genesis clause is present with broad focus/emphasis on the entire predication and the enclitic attaches to the verb and the Lukan clause is presented with narrow focus/emphasis only on υἱόν--thus the enclitic attaches to the object.

That's my suggestion, but you can take it or leave it. ;)
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2869
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by Stephen Carlson » January 12th, 2012, 4:21 pm

MAubrey wrote: I've looked through Alford, Tischendorf, Tregelles, SBLGNT, Hodge-Farsted, Robinson-Pierpont and they all have the same accentuation.
So does Erasmus, so the accentuation goes all the way back to the first published GNT. I'd have to check those MSS with accents to see what they think.
MAubrey wrote: The other alternative would be that Mark Janse's suggestion that Wackernagel's is a prosodic phenomena is correct and that υἱόν receives the sentence accent for the clause and that's where the enclitic attaches--but of course, you and I have discussed this question quite a bit already. If that's correct, then we have a shift in interpretation between Genesis 17:19 and here:

Genesis 17:19 ἰδοὺ Σαρρα ἡ γυνή σου τέξεταί σοι υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ισαακ
Luke 1:13καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει υἱόν σοι, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννην

The Genesis clause is present with broad focus/emphasis on the entire predication and the enclitic attaches to the verb and the Lukan clause is presented with narrow focus/emphasis only on υἱόν--thus the enclitic attaches to the object.

That's my suggestion, but you can take it or leave it. ;)
Yeah, Janse's proposal is where we're not quite at agreement, but I haven't read his full treatment. I'm not sure what evidence exists for a placement of the sentence accent at any location other than the first word of an intonation unit. Thus, my understanding is that the only way to get a post-verbal narrow focus is by topicalizing or at least preposing the verb into its own intonation unit.

Ordinarily, if the narrow focus is on 'son', I would expect it to be pre-verbal, like this: καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ, υἱόν σοι γεννήσει, κτλ.

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

MAubrey
Posts: 1002
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by MAubrey » January 12th, 2012, 5:17 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:Yeah, Janse's proposal is where we're not quite at agreement, but I haven't read his full treatment. I'm not sure what evidence exists for a placement of the sentence accent at any location other than the first word of an intonation unit. Thus, my understanding is that the only way to get a post-verbal narrow focus is by topicalizing or at least preposing the verb into its own intonation unit.

Ordinarily, if the narrow focus is on 'son', I would expect it to be pre-verbal, like this: καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ, υἱόν σοι γεννήσει, κτλ.
Ordinarily, yes.

This conversation, reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend of mine about Russian word order and intonation. The standard view is that languages that have variable word order--i.e. ordered by pragmatics, rather than grammatical relations--should have a relatively fixed and predictable sentence accent (normally pre-verbal), and thus in Russian there should only be a pre-verbal sentence accent that aligns with either a contrastive topic or a preposed focal constituent. She was extremely surprised to find that in a thesis on Russian word order that while the native speaker data did, indeed, tend toward a pre-verbal accent, it was entirely possible (and perfectly natural) for the accent to appear post-verbally under certain circumstances.

I would take clauses such as Acts 24:14 as definitive on this point for Greek:

ὁμολογῶ δὲ τοῦτό σοι ὅτι ...

Independently of the position of the enclitic pronoun, the forward pointing nature of the demonstrative necessitates a narrow focus reading of the clause. The position of the enclitic pronoun fits perfectly with this on my approach, as I've said before...

I'm still looking for a publication venue for my research on this, but that's been difficult with something so technical, though I've recently found a good possibility and am talking with an editor right now.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

MAubrey
Posts: 1002
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by MAubrey » January 12th, 2012, 5:45 pm

It just occurred to me that your suggestion accentuation should be equally problematic for you.
Luke 1:13, enclitic σοι wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει σοι υἱόν,
"And your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son."
Luke 1:13, emphatic σοί wrote:καὶ ἡ γυνή σου Ἐλισάβετ γεννήσει υἱὸν σοί,"
And your wife Elizabeth will bear a son to you.
We only get accented personal pronouns when the pronoun is:

1) used with certain preposition
2) takes a discourse function like (contrastive) topic or focus

Otherwise, its going to be enclitic. Thus the accented version of this verse would still require that you have strange things going on post-verbally with unusual phonological phrasing.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2869
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by Stephen Carlson » January 12th, 2012, 7:35 pm

Thanks for the link to the paper. (snip)
MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Yeah, Janse's proposal is where we're not quite at agreement, but I haven't read his full treatment. I'm not sure what evidence exists for a placement of the sentence accent at any location other than the first word of an intonation unit. Thus, my understanding is that the only way to get a post-verbal narrow focus is by topicalizing or at least preposing the verb into its own intonation unit.
I would take clauses such as Acts 24:14 as definitive on this point for Greek:

ὁμολογῶ δὲ τοῦτό σοι ὅτι ...

Independently of the position of the enclitic pronoun, the forward pointing nature of the demonstrative necessitates a narrow focus reading of the clause. The position of the enclitic pronoun fits perfectly with this on my approach, as I've said before...
I would take Acts 24:14 as a case of verb preposing (see my comments on Acts 11:12)
MAubrey wrote:I'm still looking for a publication venue for my research on this, but that's been difficult with something so technical, though I've recently found a good possibility and am talking with an editor right now.
I hope it works out!

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

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2869
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by Stephen Carlson » January 12th, 2012, 7:52 pm

MAubrey wrote: We only get accented personal pronouns when the pronoun is:

1) used with certain preposition
2) takes a discourse function like (contrastive) topic or focus

Otherwise, its going to be enclitic. Thus the accented version of this verse would still require that you have strange things going on post-verbally with unusual phonological phrasing.
Well, not that strange, at least phonologically. Take, for example, John 18:35 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς παρέδωκάν σε ἐμοί. Pilate here is expressing surprise that the Judean chief-priests would be handing Jesus over to him. So even with a contrastive "emphatic" pronoun ἐμοί, the clitic is in the Wackernagel position of its intonation unit.

Likewise, for Luke 1:13, both parents were not expected to have children because both were too old. So the angel is telling Zach that not only Elizabeth will have a son, but that the son will also be his. (Of course, in the other miraculous birth in the Lukan infancy account, the baby is not the husband's.) So there is a discourse function; it is a least identificational, rather than merely informational, focus.

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

MAubrey
Posts: 1002
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:13 and the pronoun σοι

Post by MAubrey » January 12th, 2012, 8:44 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, not that strange, at least phonologically. Take, for example, John 18:35 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς παρέδωκάν σε ἐμοί. Pilate here is expressing surprise that the Judean chief-priests would be handing Jesus over to him. So even with a contrastive "emphatic" pronoun ἐμοί, the clitic is in the Wackernagel position of its intonation unit.

Likewise, for Luke 1:13, both parents were not expected to have children because both were too old. So the angel is telling Zach that not only Elizabeth will have a son, but that the son will also be his. (Of course, in the other miraculous birth in the Lukan infancy account, the baby is not the husband's.) So there is a discourse function; it is a least identificational, rather than merely informational, focus.
Exactly. This demonstrates that it is perfectly fine to have "emphatic" constituents post-verbally. If ἐμοί can do it, why can't υἱόν? As for the enclitic here, do enclitics pronouns ever attach to orthotonic pronouns? I never thought about it or looked for it, but at face value, it sounds odd to me. I don't have time to follow up right now...technically I don't have time for B-Greek right now either...

And after searching the NT, it seems that this post-verbal use of orthotonic pronouns (outside of PPs) is just as rare as post-verbal enclitics that don't attach to the verb.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”