MAubrey wrote: David Lim wrote:
Thanks! I know that "to love" and "αγαπαν" are not equivalent in all usages; let me use Greek instead then.
I was referring to the equivalence between:
(1) "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ειχεν εν ημιν" / "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ηγαπησεν ημας"
(2) "ινα αγαπην εχητε εν αλληλοις" / "ινα υμεις αγαπατε αλληλους"
Because of these (taken from the NT with minor modifications) I said that I think the accusative cognate noun essentially makes no difference in meaning. Furthermore I believe that the use of the cognate noun actually makes the verb more clearly denote a feeling/attitude of love rather than an activity.
Maybe you could point to where these were taken from. And also explain why these examples make you think this. I don't see what they contribute.
I took them from the following places (No, Stephen, don't assume that I back-translate.
[John 17:23-26] ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν, ἵνα γινώσκῃ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας καὶ ἠγάπησας αὐτοὺς καθὼς ἐμὲ ἠγάπησας
. ... καὶ ἐγνώρισα αὐτοῖς τὸ ὄνομά σου καὶ γνωρίσω, ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ἣν ἠγάπησάς με
ἐν αὐτοῖς ᾖ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς.
[Eph 4:6] ὁ δὲ θεὸς πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς
, καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ— χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι—
[1 John 4:16] καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχει ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν
. Ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, καὶ ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐν τῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ μένει.
[John 13:34-35] ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους
, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους. ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται πάντες ὅτι ἐμοὶ μαθηταί ἐστε, ἐὰν ἀγάπην ἔχητε ἐν ἀλλήλοις
The contexts of these imply that the phrases I gave in (1) and (2) respectively are essentially equivalent.
David Lim wrote:Or do you have any examples from Greek literature where such a construction was used and clearly cannot refer to a state?
2 Sam 13:15; John 17:26; Ephesians 2:4. You're the only one who doesn't think it isn't clear.
I think there might be a misunderstanding. At the beginning I said that I thought the Greek verb "αγαπαν" denoted an attitude/feeling, and I said that I don't know whether it should be classified as a state or activity, seeing that it seemed to be neither. I used the term "state" only because Stephen classified it to be so. So let me restate my question:
Do you have examples where the construction with the definite cognate accusative noun clearly cannot refer to the attitude/feeling but must refer to some accompanying action as well?
MAubrey wrote:I've already argued that the addition of the definite object to this normally atelic predicate makes it telic (and thus not a state). And as far as I've seen "emphatic" cognate accusatives are always indefinite. There's no easy way to search for emphatic cognate accusative, but I do have a few dozen grammars to look through for their examples: always indefinite. The few instances of definite objects that could be taken as emphatic are invariably those that already modify telic predicates, and are thus irrelevant to the question. Suffice to say, emphasis doesn't solve the issue. If this was merely emphatic. We should have an indefinite ἀγάπην, like we do with these other stative predicates:
Let me explain the examples you gave in a different way, because I don't think the issue is with telicity:
[Matt 2:10] ἰδόντες δὲ τὸν ἀστέρα ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα
[Mark 4:41] καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν
, καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους· Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;
In both cases the noun phrase does not refer to any definite entity and hence must be without the article. Also, notice that these constructions with the indefinite cognate nouns are only used when the cognate noun is modified, in these cases by an adjective to specify the kind of joy/fear. I believe there will not be any instance of the bare unmodified cognate noun used as an object of a verb, for the reason that it becomes not only semantically redundant but grammatically redundant. In contrast we have:
[1 Pet 3:14] ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι. τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε
In this case the noun phrase refers to a definite entity and hence is with the article. In normal idiomatic English, we can't just repeat the cognate noun to convey that meaning, but have to use something like "do not fear what they fear" or "do not have the fear that they have". Greek, on the other hand, allows one to use the cognate as an object of the verb, thus we get all these examples. The use of the article is determined by definiteness and, in my view, not telicity at all. Also, when the noun phrase is the main clause, relative clauses involving the verb merely modify the noun phrase and do not affect the use of the article with the noun phrase.
Consider the following:
[Matt 7:2] ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε
κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.
[John 7:24] μὴ κρίνετε κατ’ ὄψιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε
You might say that these are telic and don't count, but based on the context all are referring to the kind/manner of judgement rather than the acts of judgement. The first refers to "the kind of judgement that you judge", and the second refers to "the righteous kind of judgement", therefore both are definite and the article is used.
[Mark 7:7] μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων
· (I know that "διδασκαλίας" is not a direct object of "διδάσκοντες" but it is like one)
[Rev 2:14] ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγα, ὅτι ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ
βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, ⸀φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι·
Here likewise, in the first the teachings being referred to are indefinite and hence the article is not used, whereas the second is referring to the teaching of Balaam and hence the article is used.
[Rom 6:10] ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ· ὃ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ θεῷ
[Gal 2:20] ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ
τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.
[LXX Gen 25:7] ταῦτα δὲ τὰ ἔτη ἡμερῶν ζωῆς αβρααμ ὅσα ἔζησεν
ἑκατὸν ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε ἔτη ("ζωῆς αβρααμ" is definite because it is in a definite noun phrase)
In all three cases we see that the atelic verb "ζην" can take a definite noun phrase as its object and still remain atelic.
The non-emphatic "inner object" definite accusative is fundamentally the opposite construction as the English noun-incorporation construction.
Telic -> Atelic Noun Incorporation wrote:John drank ten beers last night and he's hung over today. Definite, Active Achievement, Telic
John went beer-drinking last night and he's hung over today. No definiteness of any kind (no object), Activity, Atelic
Both could be used in the very same context for the very same event, but when there's an articular object NP
. The predicate is made telic and thus cannot be either states or activities.
Sorry I don't get what you are referring to by "Both ... when there's an articular object NP.". If you meant to switch the comma and the full-stop, then I agree with your examples, but they only demonstrate the possibility that the resulting verb clause with a definite object is telic, but not that it is impossible for it to remain atelic for some verbs, as I showed above.