hOSOI in Rom 6.3
Steven Lo Vullo
doulos at merr.com
Sun Jan 20 15:13:32 EST 2002
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 08:13 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>> Depends on what you mean by "subject." As you well know, in parallelism
>> (chaistic or otherwise) it is customary to elide constituents in the
>> colon which can be assumed from the first colon. This is just good
>> according to E. Hemingway, one should always leave out everything that
>> be taken for granted.
>> So if by "subject" you mean the syntactical subject, I would say that
>> is not the syntactical subject of the second colon. The second colon
>> zero anaphora (verb inflection for person) to bind the second colon to
>> first colon. This is a rhetorical technique that promotes cohesion
>> the parallel structure.
> Clay is giving you a Discourse Analysis answer to what I would term an
> idiomatic or word-order question; I wouldn't disagree with anything Clay
> has said, except that it wouldn't use the phrase "elide constituents"
> say rather the subject of the main clause is left in ellipsis. English
> example I was taught: "Who steals my purse steals trash."
> Smyth (at Perseus):
> §2509. Omission of the Antecedent to a Relative.--The demonstrative
> antecedent to a relative is often omitted: either when it is in the same
> case as the relative, or in a different case from the relative. The
> omission occurs when the antecedent expresses the general idea of
> person or
> thing, and often when the relative clause precedes.
> egô de kai (houtoi) hôn kratô menoumen but I and those whom I command
> remain X. C. 5.1.26, kalon to thnêiskein hois (for toutois hois) hubrin
> zên pherei death is sweet to those to whom life brings contumely Men.
> 291, legô pantas [p. 565] eispherein aph' hosôn (for apo tosoutôn hosa)
> hekastos echei I say that all must contribute according to the ability
> each (from such means as each man has) D. 2.31.
Carl and Clay:
Thank you for your responses. Forgive more for asking a few more
(probably bone-headed) questions.
(1) Would I be safe to assume that, syntactically speaking, the
correlative pronoun functions approximately like the relative pronoun,
agreeing in gender and number with an "antecedent," whether explicit or
implied? I realize that the correlative pronoun may precede its
"antecedent," so I am using the term loosely, in the sense that the
correlative is dependent on the main clause.
(2) Smyth seems to be saying that the elliptical antecedent is a
demonstrative pronoun. This was actually my first thought in dealing
with Rom 6.3, and the conclusion I came to with regard to Rom 3.19 (hOSA
LEGEI ... [TAUTA] LALEI). This seems to fit well for Rom 3.19, since the
elliptical TAUTA is the object of the verb. But in Rom 6.3 it seems
awkward to imagine a hOUTOI as the subject of the first person plural
EBAPTISQHMEN. Is this just because I am thinking in English? Would it be
natural Greek for a demonstrative pronoun to be the subject of a first
person plural verb? Or would the personal pronoun hHMEIS be a better
candidate, at least in Rom 6.3?
Thanks for your patience. The reason this is so important to me is that
I am presently diagramming Romans. Though I realize things are not
always as "tidy" as we would like, still I want to represent the
syntactical relationships as accurately as possible.
Steven Lo Vullo
More information about the B-Greek