Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Mon May 28 17:32:19 EDT 2001
Thanks for your kind reply.
>MH: I'm not quite sure how to react to the lexicons not offering the idea.
>But what Harry Jones wrote would seem to support it:
>HWJ>In this instance it would seem to have
>to be translated in the "emphatic" because that's the only use
>that fits the context best. For example, "indeed, verily, really, in fact,
>yea, certainly, etc." ... all of this is pointed out in Dana & Mantey
>on pages 249, 250 and 251.
HH: Yes, I was humbled to read Harry's post soon after I sent mine to you.
So I will try to check Dana & Mantey at the library. It will be good to
think in terms of this option.
>MH: An example that I use in my own course shows a similar instance
>in which I think the KAI can only be emphatic:
>hOI DE PERISSWS EXEPLPHSONTO LEGONTES PROS hEAUTOUS:
>KAI TIS DUNATAI SWQHNAI;
>I would suggest that the only way of translating the emphatic force of this
>KAI is with something like:
>And they were greatly astonished saying to themselves,
>"Is anyone AT ALL able to be saved?"
HH: BAGD does give the "at all" use of KAI. In _Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics_ Wallace does not mention KAI among the emphatic conjunctions (p.
673), but he does note that KAI can be contrastive (p. 671). He offers as
the sense for contrastive conjunctions something like "but, rather, though,
or however." Wallace restricts this sense for KAI to places where it is
indicated by the context.
>I guess I would say that lexicons are by nature selective in the examples
>they give, and that they would be very bulky things indeed if they covered
>every possible nuance of a word that is so widely used as KAI.
HH: I think this is a true statement about the limitations of a lexicon. I
have noticed this in translating some OT terms, when sometimes it seems
that you need to go out of the box to arrive at an English equivalent (if
you do not want to use "behold" for "hinneh," for example).
More information about the B-Greek