[B-Greek] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 12 07:39:45 EST 2004
At 8:24 PM -0600 12/11/04, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:
>On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:54 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:
>>> After thinking about this a little more, I think you may be right.
>>> problem is that we are dealing with the neuter gender, and so things
>>> get a little ambiguous. But Carl's comment about the article reminded
>>> me of something I had read before about nominatives used in direct
>>> address. Wallace has this to say:
>>> "The articular use ... involves two nuances: address to an inferior
>>> simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of
>>> the addressee is inferior or superior. The key for determining which
>>> use is being followed has to do with whether the text in question
>>> be attributed to a Semitic source (such as quotation from the
>>> He uses Mark 5.8 as an example of an articular nominative used in
>>> address of an inferior. This would fit in well with the theme of
>>> authority over unclean spirits. Does this make sense to you?
>> It makes sense, but I'm wondering about where he gets the remark about
>> address to an inferior to begin with. I think this bears some
>> investigation rather than simple acceptance. Are you aware of any
>> support for such a conclusion? I should think simple address would be
>> sufficient. I thought Carl's REmark on the article most interesting (I
>> guess he's gotten beyond "Carl's Mark" -- I know, bad pun). While I
>> that there was a tendency to use the article when there was a vocative
>> function, I hadn't given much thought to whether there really is a
>> vocative case for the article. This is something else which bears
>George, Wallace doesn't do much explaining here. He quotes briefly from
>BDF. Here is the full quote from BDF:
>"(3) Attic used the nominative (with the article) with simple
>substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak,
>thereby addressed in the 3rd person (Aristoph., Ra. 521 hO PAIS,
>AKOLOUQEI). The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and
>the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say hO QEOS,
>hO PATHR etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being
>reproduced by the Greek nominative with the article."
>So you are right, this bears some investigation rather than hasty
>acceptance. Perhaps Carl and others who are well familiar with both
>Attic and the history of the development of the language can add more.
We're really reaching to the depths (or outer limits?) of arcane lore,
aren't we? My sense, upon reading, Steven's latest, is that I have a vague
sense of seeing something like a nominative used in direct address
somewhere in Greek literature--most of that literature being earlier than
Hellenistic--, but I surely couldn't put my finger on it, beyond a vague
notion of something seen a memorable instance of it somewhere. It did occur
to me, however, to check up on what Smyth might have to say on this
question; there are a few paragraphs devoted to the vocative, §§1283-1288.
Of relevance to our question is §1287, which I'll cite in toto:
"§1287. By the omission of SU or hUMEIS the nominative with the article may
stand in apposition to a vocative: W ANDRES hOI PARONTES 'you, gentlemen,
who are present' P. Pr. 337c, W KURE KAI hOI ALLOI PERSAI 'Cyrus and the
rest of you Persians' X. c. 3.3.20; and in apposition to the pronoun in
the verb: hO PAIS, AKOLOUQEI 'boy, attend me' Ar. Ran. 521."
Although the final citation was also cited in the BDF discussion, Smyth
says nothing quite so definite as BDF that this expression is only used to
address inferiors, who were, so to speak, thereby addressed in the 3rd
person." If the Aristophanes citation is the sole basis for that assertion,
the assertion strikes me as questionable, perhaps even overly speculative.
I thought I might just follow that up by checking the rather exhaustive,
if older, Kühner-Gerth on this very question. Good that I did so; it
disproves the BDF assertion about address to inferiors, shows that the
usage seems primarily poetic--in Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
Euripides. Upon seeing the three line citation from the Prometheus Bound, I
realize that's where I'd seen the memorable instance of a nominative for
vocative. In his footnote 1 he cites Hermann's assertion that this usage is
only in exclamations and says that's often the case, but not in the texts
he's cited in this particular paragraph.
"Was die Form des Vokativs anlangt, so sehen wir, dass selbst da, wo die
Sprache eine besondere Form fuer ihn ausgepraegt hat, dennoch zuweilen in
der Dichtersprache, selten in der Prosa, [p. 48] statt derselben die
Nominativform gebraucht wird.1 ) ZEU PATER HELIOS TE, hOS PANT' EFORAiS G,
277.2 ) DOS, FILOS r, 415 selbst ohne Zwang des Metrums. GAMBROS EMOS
QUGATHR TE, TIQESQ' ONOM' hOTTI KEN EIPW t, 406. FER' hOPWS ACARIS CARIS,W
FILOS, EIPE POU TIS ALKA; Aesch. Pr. 545. W TALAS S. Ph. 339 (dagegen W
TALAN 1196). hO KLEINOS hHMIN POSIS, ANAGKAIWS ECEI KTL. Eur. Hel. 1399.
Der Nominativ und der Vokativ sind zuweilen mit einander verbunden. W DIOS
AIQHR KAI TACUPTEROI PNOAI/ POTAMWN TE PHGAI PONTIWN TE KUMATWN/ ANHRIQMON
GELASMA PAMMHTOR TE GH Aesch. Pr. 90 sqq. Ja selbst in unmittelbarer
Verbindung. AI GAR DH hOUTOS EIH, FILOS W AIAS sonst AIAN aufgenommen, vgl.
Ellendt-Genthe, L. S. p. 13).
1 Hermann praef. ad Eur. Andr. p. XIV sqq. behauptet, ueberall, wo der
Nomin. statt des Vok. steht, sei der Nominativ non alloquentis et
compellantis, sed declarantis et exclamantis. Vgl. dens. ad hymn. in Apoll.
14. Allerdings ist der Nom. an vielen Stellen als Ausruf aufzufassen, s. §
356, 3, aber in den oben angeführten Stellen ist dieses nicht der Fall.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
More information about the B-Greek