dative of things possessed?

[DavidP83]

Hello,
I'm scratching my head on the use of dative in the following sentence : "Μακάριος ἤμην εἰ τοιαύτην γυναῖκα εἶχον καὶ τῷ κάλλει καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ" Wallace's grammar "beyond the basics" has a category of dative called "dative of things possessed". Is it the one we are contemplating here ? Thx

[Stephen Carlson]

No, it's a dative of respect/reference. It qualifies the kind of woman to one of both beauty and character.

As for a dative of thing possessed, Wallace (p. 151) says it is "exceedingly rare" and admits it is a "debatable category," with no clear example in the NT (though here you are quoting Hermas).

[Jonathan Robie]

No, it's a dative of respect/reference. It qualifies the kind of woman to one of both beauty and character.

As for a dative of thing possessed, Wallace (p. 151) says it is "exceedingly rare" and admits it is a "debatable category," with no clear example in the NT (though here you are quoting Hermas).

Yes, here's one place where you can see the quotation in context:

https://jtauber.github.io/apostolic-fat ... pherd.html

ταύτης οὖν ἰδὼν τὸ κάλλος διελογιζόμην ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου λέγων· Μακάριος ἤμην, εἰ τοιαύτην γυναῖκα εἶχον καὶ τῷ κάλλει καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ. μόνον τοῦτο ἐβουλευσάμην, ἕτερον δὲ οὐδὲ ἕν.

The verb of possession here is ἔχω, to have, and the object of that verb is γυναῖκα, which is accusative: εἰ τοιαύτην γυναῖκα εἶχον. The dative is a dative of respect. "How blessed I would be if I had such a wife of beauty and character".

[Stirling Bartholomew]

You might think of semantic categories for the cases as "training wheels" on a bicycle. First you learn them to keep you steady and then you forget them. They are not "science" and are disposable.

[DavidP83]

thank you very much to both of you

[Barry Hofstetter]

The dative of possession may be rare or non-existent in the GNT, but it's pretty common elsewhere in ancient Greek. Here is how it's introduced in Crosby and Schaeffer, my beginning Greek text:

Dative of possession. In English we say There is no lid to the box. The Latin says Puero est gladius, the boy has a sword. So in Greek the dative is used to denote the possessor, while the thing possessed is subject of the verb to be:

φυλακὴ οὐκ ἦν τῇ κὠμῃ, the village had no garrison.

[Stephen Carlson]

The dative of possession may be rare or non-existent in the GNT, but it's pretty common elsewhere in ancient Greek.

We’re not talking about the “dative of possession,” which is not uncommon, but the “dative of the thing possessed,” which is kind of the opposite (the dative marking not the possessor but the possessum) and rare. I’m 85% sure it’s a bogus category.

[Barry Hofstetter]

The dative of possession may be rare or non-existent in the GNT, but it's pretty common elsewhere in ancient Greek.

We’re not talking about the “dative of possession,” which is not uncommon, but the “dative of the thing possessed,” which is kind of the opposite (the dative marking not the possessor but the possessum) and rare. I’m 85% sure it’s a bogus category.

I am not able to find it in any grammar that I have access to.

[Stephen Carlson]

The dative of possession may be rare or non-existent in the GNT, but it's pretty common elsewhere in ancient Greek.

We’re not talking about the “dative of possession,” which is not uncommon, but the “dative of the thing possessed,” which is kind of the opposite (the dative marking not the possessor but the possessum) and rare. I’m 85% sure it’s a bogus category.

I am not able to find it in any grammar that I have access to.

It's in Wallace.

[Barry Hofstetter]

We’re not talking about the “dative of possession,” which is not uncommon, but the “dative of the thing possessed,” which is kind of the opposite (the dative marking not the possessor but the possessum) and rare. I’m 85% sure it’s a bogus category.

I am not able to find it in any grammar that I have access to.

It's in Wallace.

Oh, good grief of course it's in Wallace. I obviously meant other grammars.