Ian Scott wrote:
>I'm working on Galatians 1.9 and am confused by what seems to be the
use
>of the accusative case for the indirect object. The problem clause
is
>this one:
>
> ei tis umas euaggelizetai par' o parelabete
>
>Is umas to be considered the direct object of euaggelizetai, or is it
an
>indirect object (to you). In the latter case I suppose the direct
object
>would be an implied "Gospel" which serves as the understood antecedent
of
>the relative pronoun in o parelabete. Or am I just reading this
wrong?
*u(ma=s* is the second direct complement (DC) of *eu)aggeli/zw*,
constructed in the double accusative scheme of verbs of teaching (like
*dida/skw tou\s pai/das th\n grammatikh/n*). In Ancient Greek,
difference between indirect object (or best indirect complement, IC)
and second direct complement with such verbs is a difference of degree
of transitivization. Since both (the first DC and the IC) can be the
subject of the passivized construction, the constituent in IC function
is here felt as another CD, and takes the accusative case.
The situation is very unlike Spanish and closer to English; Spanish
presents very strong restrictions to the functions that can be
passivized, but the English passivization allows "Mary was given ..."
and "the book was given..." as pasivizations of "They gave the book to
Mary".
Since in Greek we have a very clear formal indication of the
grammatical status of *u(ma=s* (the accusative case) it is clear that
the function it accomplishes is CD, not IC. Why English grammars
unanimously consider "Mary" as IC and never a DC in sentences like
"They gave the book to Mary" is a question I leave to English
grammarians.
But of course, if you prefer a functionalist analysis, *u(mei=s* will
be considered as benefactor in the sentence, no matter if it is used in
the accusative or the dative case.
The best study of this constructions in Greek is Jacquinod, Bernard.
1989. Le double accusatif en grec d'Homre la fin du Ve
sicle avant J.-C. Louvain -la-neuve: Peeters; cf. also
1717,0071,0000Jacquinod, B. 1991. Le double
accusatif et l'organisation de la proposition en Grec ancien. En
Etudes de syntaxe du grec
classique1717,0071,0000, editado por M.
Biraud. Niza; Erasmi, Gabriele. 1986. Costruzioni col doppio
accusativo in inglese e la loro resa nelle lingue romanze.
Rassegna-Italiana-di-Linguistica-Applicata1717,0071,0000
18 (1):55-68. Garca Hernndez, Benjamn. 1994. From lexemics to
syntax: the double accusative with doceo and
the dative with
sum1717,0071,0000. En
Linguistic studies on Latin. Papers from the 6th
International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest 23-27 March
1991) = SLCS 281717,0071,0000, editado
por J. Herman. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamin;
Hudson, Richard. 1989. English passives, grammatical relations
and default inheritance.
Lingua1717,0071,0000
79:17-48.
___________________________________________________________________
Daniel Rian~o Rufilanchas
c. Santa Engracia 52, 7 dcha.
28010-Madrid, Espan~a
---
b-greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
To post a message to the list, mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, mailto:subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]