Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑November 11th, 2021, 6:25 pm
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑November 11th, 2021, 4:52 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑November 11th, 2021, 3:45 pm
It’s not a simple direct object. As far as I can tell. It’s proleptic for topicalization and the case assignment follows that. English prefers other devices for topicalization, including “of whom.”
Hmmm... I think we might be saying the same thing using different metalanguage.
Perhaps, but the claim that it is "simple" is basically a flex, in that that prolepsis is a bit weird and needs to be explained to students.
The definition of
prolepsis according to the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek:
CGCG 720 § 60.37 wrote:Topics of subordinate clauses which follow the matrix clause are sometimes syntactically integrated into that matrix clause. This is called prolepsis. The construction allows the speaker to treat the ‘dislocated’ constituent as the (given) topic of the subordinate clause, which otherwise contains strongly focal material.
In John 8:54, the relative pronoun ὅν is syntactically integrated into the λέγετε matrix clause and so looks like a direct object but it isn't really one as it semantically belongs to the subordinate clause. This syntax-semantic mismatch has a discourse function along the lines set forth above.
Thanks Stephen for the proleptic accusative. I had not realized the complexities here. I went off and read a bit more. Here is a paper I found interesting
http://www.let.rug.nl/dvries/pdf/2016-p ... evised.pdf. I don't have enough linguistics to know if I should buy the ellipses/ECM argument but the dislocation is clear enough and seems to fit with CGCG.
I'll note that the paper considers the object direct.
That leaves this question of Jason's a little unresolved:
Jason Hare wrote: ↑November 11th, 2021, 3:27 pm
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑November 11th, 2021, 7:59 am
Why, when it makes perfect sense as the simple direct object of λέγετε?
Does it? Can you speak a person? Can you say a person? I don’t see how that could be a simple direct object.
I think the answer here might be rather that you are saying the subordinate clause and the syntax has gotten somewhat overridden by the dislocation to create topic/focus for that subordinate clause.
I did look at acc of reference/respect. I found one example that felt close to this case, but most of the examples seemed sufficiently different in the relation of the accusative to the referred entity, to leave doubts for me at any rate.
Regardless, a really interesting question from which I learned a bunch of stuff.
Thx
D