Louis L Sorenson wrote:I find in interesting that Kuhner and Smyth have about twice as many quotes; Robertson and BDF also have many citations.
Herodotus' influence has also been noted in Appian's language and style, as
has that of Thucydides and Xenophon. Despite his twenty-four books (perhaps
a Homeric touch) Appian sees himself treading the path of classical historians,
But his style neither imitates any individual (as Arrian imitates Xenophon) nor
does it adopt an extreme Atticist position. Although he draws on the classics
for phraseology, continues to use the dual and shows care in avoiding hiatus,
there is much influence from the koine, especially in his use of participles. and
prepositions. Worse still, the influence of Latin has been seen in his syntax, in
the meanings of certain words and in his formation of compounds. He is one of
the few Greek writers of any pretensions to admit Latin terms in transliteration
such as λίβερτος for freedman, ἰντέρρηγα for interrex and ἰγκουϊλῖνον for lodger.
But in each case there is a good reason for giving the Latin term (much more
often Appian offers a Greek equivalent or a periphrasis) and the decision is
characteristic of the hard-headed barrister who understood and respected the
workings of the Roman system and had no sympathy for the Cynics
Louis L Sorenson wrote:I just read this ,,,, about Appian ,,, and his use of participles. How is the participle different in Koine?
cwconrad wrote:My impression, which is at this point insufficiently tested but is informed by considerable reading over the years, is that the usage of participles in Hellenistic Greek is considerably more extensive than it was in the Classical era. I do think that there's almost certainly some variation between individual authors, and, perhaps obviously, more careful elaboration in "better" authors (more painstaking stylists?).
cwconrad wrote:while it's clear that participial phrases sometimes function in a manner similar to relative clauses, I'm not at all convinced that participial usage and relative usage ought to be treated as "a linguistic opposable pair."
No. We didn't. I hope that at the end of working through the issues on participles and text-type, we will be able to see the issue in perspective with a greater field of vision and a greater depth of focus.cwconrad wrote:I don't think we ever did reach any consensus on a generic categorization of the text in Eph 1 that was discussed
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests