Re: Is GAR a coordinating or subordinating conjunction?

From: Kimmo Huovila (kimmo.huovila@helsinki.fi)
Date: Wed Dec 08 1999 - 05:56:28 EST


The same semantic relationship of causality may be expressed using two
different syntactic means (co-ordination and subordination).

I fail to see how these counter-examples would be relevant. In all these
examples with for, the clause giving the reason follows the other
clause. The order is interchangable with because, not with for. That
would support the idea that for connects two independent clauses,
whereas because begins a clause that is subordinate. In English (and
Greek, for that matter) a constituent may be topicalized by giving it
the initial position. Thus the moving of the entire clause to an initial
position is easy to explain on the basis of it being a constituent of
the matrix clause. However, the argument does not apply to the for
clauses, for in these cases the order is not interchangable.

As for Greek, I am not aware that gar would ever give the reason for a
sentence following it. Thus, if the same criterion is used, it would be
co-ordinating. A hoti clause, on the other hand, can (like English
because) precede (John 20:29) or follow (as usually) the sentence for
which the hoti clause gives a reason. This would favor classifying it as
subordinating.

BTW, I wonder if it would be relevant how the ordinary koine speakers
would have analyzes this, because the average speaker would not even
have known these terms. I guess the semantics is not so much a matter of
dispute here, but the syntactic analysis we give to these particles. And
the syntactic analysis presupposes a syntactic theory, which the average
speaker would not have known.

But it is absolutely true that when studying Greek the English
equivalent is not that important. The Greek usage determines the
classification of these Greek particles, not any English equivalency. I
took the English examples as just examples.

Kimmo

Daniel L Christiansen wrote:
>
> Kimmo Huovila wrote [snipped]:
>
> > There is a difference with the English clauses. Try changing the order
> > of clauses:
> > (1) *For Jack was very tired, he went to bed early.
> > (2) Because I recommended the book, Gerald read it.
> >
> > In the latter case the reason clause may be taken as a constituent of
> > the main clause.
>
> IMO, this does not address the problem, even in English, since we may also write
>
> (1) Because Jack was tired, he went to bed.
> (2) Gerald read the book, for I recommended it.
>
> I'll side with Carlton on this one. The question is not whether an English
> translation of GAR can be coord. or subord., but whether GAR was understood by
> everday koine readers and speakers as being one or the other, and under which
> circumstances.

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:48 EDT