Attribution and Epexegesis

[Gary Collier]

I haven’t yet found this discussed on this board, but I’m wondering why Wallace keeps two categories (appositional and epexegetical) separate throughout his book except in the genitive case, where he combines them in the genitive of apposition. I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen that he explains why this should be the case. I would appreciate hearing others about this.

To be specific, when reading Wallace on appositional vs epexegetical throughout his book:

• He talks about both as separate categories throughout his grammar for numerous applications of the language: Nominatives, datives, accusatives, infinitives, and with ὁτι or ἱνα (see Wallace 48, 62, 70f, 152; 198, 458f, 460, 475f, 600, 606f).

• Yet, only for the genitive case, does he combine the two together and call them: “Genitive of Apposition (Epexegetical Genitive, Genitive of Definition).”

Otherwise, he keeps the two categories separate throughout the grammar, and he lists them this way:

• Appositional (namely, that is to say—defining or clarifying the previous statement); or

• Epexegetical (to the effect that—explaining, clarifying, or completing the previous statement.)

pp. 152; 199, 460 he uses the word “clarify” for both categories:
p. 460 he notes about the infinitive that: “Many examples... could be treated either as appositional or epexegetical (although the appositional use is more common than epexegetical).”

Gary D. Collier

[Stephen Carlson]

Wallace does make the distinction for the genitive. One is called "Genitive in Simple Apposition" (p. 94) and the other is called "Genitive of Apposition (Epexegetical Genitive, Genitive of Definition)" (pp. 95-98), with a discussion of distinguishing them (pp. 98-100).

I'll grant that his terminology isn't completely consistent, but he's dealing with an entrenched term "genitive of apposition" and compromises have to be made.

[Gary Collier]

Stephen, I appreciate your reply. I'll apologize for not being specific enough (and I did not realize I had typed the title as Attribution instead of Apposition). I agree that Wallace is "dealing with an entrenched term 'genitive of apposition' and compromises have to be made," and also that grammars and commentators can be quite varied in terminology. I'm not attempting to be overly critical of Wallace's GGBB. I use it all the time. That said, with all of his welcome emphasis on what is useful for students (and not simply or solely on what is technically or linguistically accurate) (all of that is good, too), the relation of Apposition and Epexegesis is one area on which he spends a good bit of time (very helpful stuff), but which I would like to see at least a bit of tidying up. I'm not suggesting he's mistaken, but that it might be helpful to do some macro-relating of terms in his book. I've attached a chart showing how he talks about these terms, and I think it is clear that unless someone spends a boatload of time specifically on this topic, it is quite easy to get confused or overwhelmed with how these terms function throughout the book. If anyone sees areas for improvement/correction of this chart, I'm certainly open to that. Please note that the chart is arranged in order by page number. The major headings are simply as he lists them. Thanks again.