Accusative case 1 John 1:1
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm
Accusative case 1 John 1:1
ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς
The first neuter relative pronoun is marked as being in the Nominative case.
Those that follow are in the accusative case.
Here is my question and it is based upon the fact that they are all identical.
Are the accusatives determined by context or am I missing something?
John
The first neuter relative pronoun is marked as being in the Nominative case.
Those that follow are in the accusative case.
Here is my question and it is based upon the fact that they are all identical.
Are the accusatives determined by context or am I missing something?
John
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm
Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1
Determined by context.
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm
Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1
Thank you.
John
John
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1
Context helps of course, but here the syntax is a pretty clear guide:
The first verb ἦν is intransitive; it does not take an accusative object, so ὅ must be nominative.
The second verb ἀκηκόαμεν is transitive, but its subject must be first-person masculine plural. Since ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject and so is the expected direct object in the accusative. Ditto for ἑωράκαμεν and ἐθεασάμεθα.
The first verb ἦν is intransitive; it does not take an accusative object, so ὅ must be nominative.
The second verb ἀκηκόαμεν is transitive, but its subject must be first-person masculine plural. Since ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject and so is the expected direct object in the accusative. Ditto for ἑωράκαμεν and ἐθεασάμεθα.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm
Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1
Stephenson Carlson
John
Good stuff. This is very helpfulSince ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject
John
Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1
Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."Stephen Carlson wrote:Context helps of course, but here the syntax is a pretty clear guide:
The first verb ἦν is intransitive; it does not take an accusative object, so ὅ must be nominative.
The second verb ἀκηκόαμεν is transitive, but its subject must be first-person masculine plural. Since ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject and so is the expected direct object in the accusative. Ditto for ἑωράκαμεν and ἐθεασάμεθα.
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1
Well, yeah, but we're talking about the neuter singular relative pronoun (ὅς, ἥ,) ὅ, not the masculine singular article.David Lim wrote:Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1
Yup, they would be nicely differentiated in a modern printed edition, but I'm assuming that the original writers didn't write accents. Anyway sorry if my comment was off-topic.Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, yeah, but we're talking about the neuter singular relative pronoun (ὅς, ἥ,) ὅ, not the masculine singular article.David Lim wrote:Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm
Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1
David Lim
John
I can see how this could happen. Was helpful.Yup, they would be nicely differentiated in a modern printed edition, but I'm assuming that the original writers didn't write accents. Anyway sorry if my comment was off-topic.
John
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1
They may not have written accents, but they are still relative pronouns just the same. The syntax does not support their being articles (e.g. no following particle like μέν or δέ).David Lim wrote:Yup, they would be nicely differentiated in a modern printed edition, but I'm assuming that the original writers didn't write accents. Anyway sorry if my comment was off-topic.Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, yeah, but we're talking about the neuter singular relative pronoun (ὅς, ἥ,) ὅ, not the masculine singular article.David Lim wrote:Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia