aorist participles

[grogers]

I suspect that's also what the King James is trying to accomplish with the future and the conditional in "if they shall fall away", distinguish the "good times" from the time of falling away.

I don't think the "shall" in the KJV would be regarded as future, but as modal = "they certainly will". It was common usage in earlier English, and is still common in formal usage, such as in legal documents.

Point taken. I supposed I should have said a conditional aorist. This is how Wallace regards it, "This participle implies a condition on which the fulfillment of the idea indicated by the main verb depends. Its force can be introduced by if in translation. This usage is fairly common." DBW. But every example he offered was in a present participle with the exception of one perfect and one aorist - Jn 9:25. Have I misunderstood Wallace?

I don't think you need Wallace to tell you how to say something in English, though!. As has already been said, the Greek passage describes an outcome for a group of people who have experienced certain blessings and then followed a certain course of behaviour. There are many different ways to describe that in English. Again, as has already been said pretty clearly, the translator's task is to try to reflect the essential meaning of the Greek, and this task will actually be impeded if you get too hung up on trying to produce a one-to-one word parallel between the two languages.

Perhaps it would be useful to ask yourself exactly what you understand the Greek text of this passage to be saying, and then sit down and see how many different ways you can express this idea in English accurately . It will most likely take you quite a while to exhaust the possibilities. From your list, you could then select what YOU think best reflects the Greek - but that doesn't mean it is the ONLY way or the MOST PRECISE way or the BEST way - or even the MOST ATTRACTIVE way to say it in English. Such an exercise, if you did it a few times for different passages, would demonstrate to you the 'art' of translating a passage faithfully.

I'd put TD's comments here in this post as one of top-ten on B-Greek.

Gentlemen, I wish to apologize for my inexperience in the use of this forum and for my ignorance of the language. I also wish to thank everyone for their comments and let you know how much I have truly appreciated your assistance in this matter.

[Jonathan Robie]

But there's no such thing as a conditional verb, this is all an attempt to convey what the Greek says in English, it involves interpretation, and something is always lost in translation.

Point taken. I supposed I should have said a conditional aorist. This is how Wallace regards it, "This participle implies a condition on which the fulfillment of the idea indicated by the main verb depends. Its force can be introduced by if in translation. This usage is fairly common." DBW. But every example he offered was in a present participle with the exception of one perfect and one aorist - Jn 9:25. Have I misunderstood Wallace?

Wallace is confusing here and maybe a little misleading. There is no such thing as a conditional verb or a conditional aorist or a conditional participle. The examples in his section are adverbial aorists. Wallace actually does tell you this in one place, quoting Dana and Mantey:

... the context plays a major role in determining the force of the Greek participle. This is especially so with the adverbial participle. "The varieties in adverbial use come, not from alterations in the essential function of the participle, but from variations in the relation of its noun to the main verb and the context"

But that gets lost in the sections that follow, including the one on the "conditional participle". I have several issues with that section.

• I think treating these things as categories of participles implies that this is the force of the participle per se, and it is not.
• I really wish this section would emphasize that any conditional force comes from the relationship of the adverbial participle and the relationship between the clause in which it is found, the subject, the main verb, and the rest of the context, not from the participle per se.
• Instead of creating lots of categories, I think it's more helpful to use a few categories (such as 'adjectival', 'adverbial', and 'supplemental'), and spend a lot of time understanding how the contribution of the participle per se interacts with the rest of the sentence to create the overall meaning. The categories conflate all that and get in the way of teaching this process.
• I suspect that his categorization really does boil down to whether someone should use "if" when translating to English, and that's not really about the use of the Greek. It tends to put focus on the translation rather than the Greek. This problem is endemic in Wallace.

Gentlemen, I wish to apologize for my inexperience in the use of this forum and for my ignorance of the language. I also wish to thank everyone for their comments and let you know how much I have truly appreciated your assistance in this matter.

Your questions are completely appropriate here - especially in the beginner's forum. And the section of the book you are using is legitimately confusing. Questions are good for B-Greek.

[Thomas Dolhanty]

Gentlemen, I wish to apologize for my inexperience in the use of this forum and for my ignorance of the language. I also wish to thank everyone for their comments and let you know how much I have truly appreciated your assistance in this matter.

Glen, no need to apologize. We're all learners, and one of the great benefits of B-Greek is that there are people here at all different levels. Better still, those who are more advanced are willing to help other learners. Pretty much everyone who has been around for any amount of time has had his knuckles rapped, and some of us have been knocked flat on our 'keesters' a few times! But always with the idea of helping a fellow learner and getting the language right. If you stick with it, it will greatly motivate and enhance your growth in the knowledge of Greek.

[Thomas Dolhanty]

Wallace is confusing here and maybe a little misleading. There is no such thing as a conditional verb or a conditional aorist or a conditional participle. The examples in his section are adverbial aorists. Wallace actually does tell you this in one place, quoting Dana and Mantey:



... the context plays a major role in determining the force of the Greek participle. This is especially so with the adverbial participle. "The varieties in adverbial use come, not from alterations in the essential function of the participle, but from variations in the relation of its noun to the main verb and the context"


But that gets lost in the sections that follow, including the one on the "conditional participle". I have several issues with that section.

• I think treating these things as categories of participles implies that this is the force of the participle per se, and it is not.
• I really wish this section would emphasize that any conditional force comes from the relationship of the adverbial participle and the relationship between the clause in which it is found, the subject, the main verb, and the rest of the context, not from the participle per se.
• Instead of creating lots of categories, I think it's more helpful to use a few categories (such as 'adjectival', 'adverbial', and 'supplemental'), and spend a lot of time understanding how the contribution of the participle per se interacts with the rest of the sentence to create the overall meaning. The categories conflate all that and get in the way of teaching this process.
• I suspect that his categorization really does boil down to whether someone should use "if" when translating to English, and that's not really about the use of the Greek. It tends to put focus on the translation rather than the Greek. This problem is endemic in Wallace.

I had heard this recently, and am becoming more and more aware of it now that I am looking more carefully. I have also heard that there is a new edition of Wallace in the works, but have no idea whether that is true, or how close publication might be.

Given all that, what would you recommend as a 2nd year grammar book for a course which will have reading as the primary focus, but which will also introduce intermediate grammar topics in the background? I have the usual collection, but nothing quite replaces Wallace in what I've seen.

[Jonathan Robie]

Given all that, what would you recommend as a 2nd year grammar book for a course which will have reading as the primary focus, but which will also introduce intermediate grammar topics in the background? I have the usual collection, but nothing quite replaces Wallace in what I've seen.

Other people here probably know what's available better than I do. I rather like Funk's grammar.

But Wallace does have a lot of strengths, as long as you are aware if its weaknesses ...

[grogers]

But there's no such thing as a conditional verb, this is all an attempt to convey what the Greek says in English, it involves interpretation, and something is always lost in translation.

Point taken. I supposed I should have said a conditional aorist. This is how Wallace regards it, "This participle implies a condition on which the fulfillment of the idea indicated by the main verb depends. Its force can be introduced by if in translation. This usage is fairly common." DBW. But every example he offered was in a present participle with the exception of one perfect and one aorist - Jn 9:25. Have I misunderstood Wallace?

Wallace is confusing here and maybe a little misleading. There is no such thing as a conditional verb or a conditional aorist or a conditional participle. The examples in his section are adverbial aorists. Wallace actually does tell you this in one place, quoting Dana and Mantey:

... the context plays a major role in determining the force of the Greek participle. This is especially so with the adverbial participle. "The varieties in adverbial use come, not from alterations in the essential function of the participle, but from variations in the relation of its noun to the main verb and the context"

But that gets lost in the sections that follow, including the one on the "conditional participle". I have several issues with that section.

• I think treating these things as categories of participles implies that this is the force of the participle per se, and it is not.
• I really wish this section would emphasize that any conditional force comes from the relationship of the adverbial participle and the relationship between the clause in which it is found, the subject, the main verb, and the rest of the context, not from the participle per se.
• Instead of creating lots of categories, I think it's more helpful to use a few categories (such as 'adjectival', 'adverbial', and 'supplemental'), and spend a lot of time understanding how the contribution of the participle per se interacts with the rest of the sentence to create the overall meaning. The categories conflate all that and get in the way of teaching this process.
• I suspect that his categorization really does boil down to whether someone should use "if" when translating to English, and that's not really about the use of the Greek. It tends to put focus on the translation rather than the Greek. This problem is endemic in Wallace.

Gentlemen, I wish to apologize for my inexperience in the use of this forum and for my ignorance of the language. I also wish to thank everyone for their comments and let you know how much I have truly appreciated your assistance in this matter.

Your questions are completely appropriate here - especially in the beginner's forum. And the section of the book you are using is legitimately confusing. Questions are good for B-Greek.

Thanks for the clarification on Wallace.

[Bryant J. Williams III]

Dear GRogers,

Having been a Basketball Official for 24 yrs (3500 games) when I retired in 2010 I always remember this rule of thumb, "Know your definitions; when in doubt check the Case Book."

Now, the High School Rule Book consisted of many different rules (10 and broken down from there), but Rule 2 was definitions. This consisted of what was the definition of a dribble, traveling, a shot, foul, common foul, intentional foul, etc. The rest of the Rule Book was based on those definitions with consequences given when a violation or foul occurred. The Case Book even gave game situations that had actually occurred and the answers based upon the applicable Definition (from Rule 2) and Rules (3-10).

View Rule 2 (Definition) as your Basic Greek Grammar; and the Case Book as the Greek Lexicon and Advanced Greek Grammars.

Now, the following definition is from the late Rodney Decker, Reading Koine Greek. 2014, pages 385ff,

"Introductions to Participles,
23.3 As you have already learned, there two kinds of verbal forms: finite and non-finite. Finite verbs have pers and number: a defalut, built-in subject. Participles (and infinitives) are not finite verbs, so we call thennon-finite forms, which means that they do have grammatical person. That is, there is no default, built-in, back-pocket subject as with regular verbs. Non-finite forms simply describe an action without telling us who did it, or they apply a verbal description to a noun. You met the first of the non-finite forms, the infinitive, in the last chapter. In this chapter you will meet the second of these non-finite verbals: the participle."

Decker then goes on and discusses the the English Participle (pp/ 386-387) followed by the Greek Participle so that one knows the similarities and differences (pp. 386-458).The rest of Chapter 23 discusses the Basics of the Participle and the Imperfective Adverbial Participle; Chapter 24 discusses the Perfective Adverbial Participle. BTW, Decker discusses Formal and Informal Conditions on pp. 498-511 and pp. 512-526, respectively.

The Imperfective Adverbial Participle is found with the PRESENT Participle. The Perfective Adverbial is found with the AORIST Participle. Page 417, Decker gives this definition of a Participle Used Conditional Statements, "Conditional participles describe the conditions on which the action of the main verb is dependent." Galatians 6:9 and I Timothy 4:4 are used as examples.

Pages 512-513, Informal Conditions Involving Adverbial Conditions,
"31.2 Each of the following examples has an adverbial participle that modifies the main verb. The question that must be asked in each instance is, what is the relationship between the action described by the participle and that of the main verb? The one that is relevant here is that the participle specifies a condition necessary for the main verb to occur. That is, the participle functions as the protasis, and main verbal clause is the apodasis." Galatians 6:9, I Timothy 4:14, Hebrews 7:12, and Exodus 9:15 (LXX) are used as an examples of an Informal Condition with Adverbial Participles. Please note that regarding the use of the LXX quote that one must understand the underlying Hebrew make sure that the LXX translation is a correct understanding of the underlying Hebrew text; cf. also Luke 9:25, Hebrews 2:3 Job 35:3, Song of Solomon 8:1 and Leviticus 18:5


En Xristwi,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

[Jonathan Robie]

Pages 512-513, Informal Conditions Involving Adverbial Conditions,
"31.2 Each of the following examples has an adverbial participle that modifies the main verb. The question that must be asked in each instance is, what is the relationship between the action described by the participle and that of the main verb? The one that is relevant here is that the participle specifies a condition necessary for the main verb to occur.

Yes, that's a great way to look at it.

That is, the participle functions as the protasis, and main verbal clause is the apodasis." Galatians 6:9, I Timothy 4:14, Hebrews 7:12, and Exodus 9:15 (LXX) are used as an examples of an Informal Condition with Adverbial Participles. Please note that regarding the use of the LXX quote that one must understand the underlying Hebrew make sure that the LXX translation is a correct understanding of the underlying Hebrew text; cf. also Luke 9:25, Hebrews 2:3 Job 35:3, Song of Solomon 8:1 and Leviticus 18:5

This part makes me a little squeamish. Does it really "function as" the protasis syntactically? I need a linguist here ...