[b-greek] Re: article beginning a clause- Steven, Carl, Carlton

From: Moon-Ryul Jung (moon@saint.soongsil.ac.kr)
Date: Tue Jan 02 2001 - 19:42:28 EST


Carl,

[Carl]
> Without raising or looking for any response to the source-critical question
> I simply note the parallel in Mark 9:33-34 KAI EN THi OIKIAi GENOMENOS
> EPHRWTA AUTOUS: TI EN THi hODWi DIELOGIZESQE? hOI DE ESIWPWN; PROS ALLHLOUS
> GAR DIELECQHSAN EN THi hODWi TIS MEIZWN. I personally think that this is an
> earlier formulation of the same tradition; here TIS MEIZWN is perhaps the
> weakest possible form of the indirect question; it omits a copulative verb
> and it is not introduced by anything, although I think it's clear enough
> that TIS MEIZWN functions as a noun clause of indirect question and that it
> is the object of the verb DIELECQHSAN: "they'd been discussing which one is
> the greatest." Now compare this with Luke's formulation: Luke 9:46 reads
> EISHLQE DE DIALOGISMOS EN AUTOIS, TO TIS AN EIH MEIZWN AUTWN. I have to say
> here what I've said before: I think Luke formulates the narrative assertion
> far more elegantly without telling us anything at all different from what
> Mark tells us. I think that use of the TO serves no function further than
> to MARK what is already a noun clause of indirect question AS a noun clause
> of indirect question. That's precisely the function of the article here: to
> mark TIS (AN EIH) MEIZWN (AUTWN) as a noun functioning in apposition to
> DIALOGISMOS. I'd say that there's a very precise parallel with contemporary
> Latin's usage of ILLUD to refer to a phrase, particularly a common phrase
> (what Moon's referring to above as "not an uncommon topic among people").
> Thus the Oxford Latin Dictionary cites Pliny Epist. 1.20.21: AUDIS
> FREQUENTER UT ILLUD 'IMMODICE ET REDUNDANTER' ITA HOC 'IEIUNE ET INFIRME.'
> ("Just as you often hear that phrase, 'endlessly and repeatedly, so do you
> also hear the phrase, 'poorly and sickly.'"
>

[Moon]
Thanks for this example,

PROS ALLHLOUS
> GAR DIELECQHSAN EN THi hODWi TIS MEIZWN.

It answers my first question. So, the TO is not needed
to make a clause a noun clause. But you seem to say too much when you
say:

> Use of the TO serves no function further than
> to MARK what is already a noun clause of indirect question AS a noun clause
> of indirect question.
 
Of course, the TO marks the clause as a noun clause. But it seems to be a
side effect of the TO, whose intended purpose is to mark what is known
AS KNOWN. If the idea of the clause had not been common among the people,
the writer would not have used the TO in front of the clause.
Assume that the idea of the clause had not been common among the people.
If the writer had wanted to mark the clause AS a noun clause by using the
TO, he would not have done it because it had the side effect of
marking the idea of the clause as KNOWN. This side effect was not what
the writer wanted.

Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Associate Professor
Dept of Digital Media
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:45 EDT