syntax of disjunctive phrase (Matt. 5:36)

[Charlie Law]

Setting aside for just a moment the theoretical discussion, I went looking for examples of this phrase. Lots of samples of what you would expect. One author alternated:

Joannes Damascenus Dialectica sive Capita philosophica (recensio fusior)
Section 58, line 23

οὐ γὰρ ἀνάγκη πᾶν σῶμα ἢ λευκὸν εἶναι ἢ μέλαν, εἰσὶ γὰρ σώματα φαιὰ καὶ πυῤῥά· –


Joannes Damascenus Expositio fidei
Section 10, line 11

ὅτι λευκὸν ἢ μέλαν ἐστίν

Interesting examples. They're from much later, though, right?

[Charlie Law]

I just wanted to comment on this little detail: the reason it seems counterintuitive in this case is because you cannot do that in English (or in many other languages), not because it's logically counterintuitive. In English "white or black" must be connected because you cannot say "white make", you have to say "make white". Therefore you cannot say "white make or black", either, and doing it in another language which has more freedom feels weird. Logical enough?

Yes, I agree about the bondage of the mother tongue. I always have trouble moving outside my mother tongue's syntactic patterns.

About other languages having "more freedom": even though there are more syntactic options available to speakers of highly inflected languages, I still operate under the assumption that changes in default patterns are always motivated. Using the default pattern is a choice made by the speaker or writer, too, right? Perhaps with Greek it's harder to identify the default pattern. That's a problem I have, at least. I've been messing around with N.T. Greek for many years, but I've pretty much always been swimming in the baby pool.

[Jonathan Robie]

We have data on information structure and syntax. What would we need to know about prosody? The traditional accounting of enclitics is straightforward, but I get the impression you think we need something beyond that.

I don't know how to answer that. In your view, what is the traditional account of enclitics?

Smyth.

[MAubrey]

We have data on information structure and syntax. What would we need to know about prosody? The traditional accounting of enclitics is straightforward, but I get the impression you think we need something beyond that.

I don't know how to answer that. In your view, what is the traditional account of enclitics?

Smyth.

Ah. I get it. We're talking about different things. I'm talking about the word order of enclitics within the clauses (e.g. Wackernagel's Law). Smyth is just talking about where and when certain accents do or do not occur.

[Jonathan Robie]

Ah. I get it. We're talking about different things. I'm talking about the word order of enclitics within the clauses (e.g. Wackernagel's Law). Smyth is just talking about where and when certain accents do or do not occur.

Ah, so THAT's what you're talking about. I'll have to read up on Wackernagel's law, I have only looked at it briefly and never tried to do anything with it.

[MAubrey]

Ah. I get it. We're talking about different things. I'm talking about the word order of enclitics within the clauses (e.g. Wackernagel's Law). Smyth is just talking about where and when certain accents do or do not occur.

Ah, so THAT's what you're talking about. I'll have to read up on Wackernagel's law, I have only looked at it briefly and never tried to do anything with it.

Back in 2010, I did some hypothesizing with pronoun data, though I didn't mention Wackernagel: https://koine-greek.com/studies-in-gree ... ent-order/

[Jonathan Robie]

Back in 2010, I did some hypothesizing with pronoun data, though I didn't mention Wackernagel: https://koine-greek.com/studies-in-gree ... ent-order/

Thanks - this looks very helpful. I remember seeing this go by, but I wasn't paying enough attention at the time.

[Charlie Law]

Something may be learned looking at the variations in the witnesses to the text.

Matt. 5:36
R-P μητε εν τη κεφαλη σου ομοσης οτι ου δυνασαι μιαν τριχα λευκην η μελαιναν ποιησαι
NA27 μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν.

The Byzantine text including the TR show verb final position. A decent textual apparatus (Reuben Swanson) shows the same verb after δύνασαι in front of μίαν τρίχα in Codex Bezae Dc(*) and f1. The Gothic Version agrees with the Byzantine text[1].

[1] A STUDY OF PURPOSE, RESULT, AND CAUSAL HYPOTAXIS IN EARLY INDO-EUROPEAN GOSPEL VERSIONS,
JOSEPH ALLEN PENNINGTON, p423 (443 pdf).

Interesting. Here's Bezae, according to Alan Bunning's site:

μητε εν τη κεφαλη σου ομοσησ οτι ου δυνασαι ποιειν τριχα μειαν λευκην η μελαιναν

O.K., I'm seeing that text variants show several possibilities, presumably all of which would have been considered grammatically acceptable. That's fascinating; these didn't turn up in good old Metzger, which is all we used in my seminary Greek classes in the 80s. I have access to CNTTS in BibleWorks but I confess that haven't used it much. Thanks for the nudge, guys.

But my question remains: what are some possible reasons for the constituent order seen in NA27?

[MAubrey]

But my question remains: what are some possible reasons for the constituent order seen in NA27?

How deep do you want to go here? There are a number quite non-traditional grammar concepts we'll need to work through in order to get to laying out the reasons.

[Charlie Law]

But my question remains: what are some possible reasons for the constituent order seen in NA27?

How deep do you want to go here? There are a number quite non-traditional grammar concepts we'll need to work through in order to get to laying out the reasons.

Well, let's say that I'm willing to be challenged. I've read in discourse analysis for many years. A lot of the linguistics reading I've done over the years has been in Halliday- and Lamb-inspired approaches that are probably what you'd call "non-traditional". I've spent a fair amount of time analyzing and charting texts, mainly narrative, in non-IE languages, so I've seen the limits of traditional grammatical categories. Right now I'm trying to learn about relevance theory, since I know a lot of people who are working in that and I want to understand what they're talking about. I was exposed to prosodics in linguistics courses, but I don't know much and I'm sure things have come a long way since them. In other words, I'm happy to learn about alternative ways of look at language, but I'm not a specialist in any of them. Also, I'm not near a library and can only read things I can find online. I often can't get access to scholarly journals.