KAI LEGWN--epexegetical KAI?

Mark DelCogliano cassian at dellepro.com
Mon Jan 28 18:04:10 EST 2002


Dear Iver,

I will have to think more on the issue of the telic partciples for a day or
two in light of what Symth 2065 says: "The future (sometimes the present)
partciple is used to denote purpose, especially after verbs denoting 'to
come, go, send, summon, etc.' Mk 1:14-15 would surely seem to be a candidate
here. Sure, the basic pattern I mentioned earlier cannot always been viewed
telically, but some of those passages may be. But I need to think more about
rather than spitting off e-mails. The issue of KAI LEGWN/LEGONTES and the
telic participles are really two different issues which simply overlap in Mk
1:14-15.

Thanks again,
Mark DelCogliano

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark DelCogliano" <cassian at dellepro.com>
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Cc: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:43 PM
Subject: [b-greek] RE: KAI LEGWN--epexegetical KAI?


> Dear Iver,
>
> [snip]
>
> > First, I believe there is Semitic influence behind many if not all of
> these
> > expressions. That is why they are most common in Matthew and Mark.
> >
> > Second, in Semitic thought pattern it is common first to mention a
generic
> > concept and then follow it with one or more specific aspects of what is
> > covered by the generic word or phrase or clause. This may be easiest to
> see
> > in some of the examples Clay quoted. For instance, in Mark 15:29
"shaking
> > the head" and "saying: (insulting words)" are specific aspects of the
> > general concept of BLASFHMEW. This also touches on Clay's comment that
the
> > specific expression may not be all inclusive of the content, but rather
an
> > example of it or a reference to the most important aspect of something
> much
> > larger. In your example above, KHRUSSEIN TO EUAGGELION TOU QEOU is the
> > general concept, followed by the specific example or summary of the main
> > point of the Gospel.
> >
> > Third, Semitic languages often have pairs like "answer and say", "shout
> and
> > say" where the "say" basically functions as a quote introducer. It may
be
> > related to the generic-specific restatement where a generic word is
paired
> > with a more specific one.
>
> To posit a Semitic thought-pattern is the background is most helpful here.
I
> am in agreement with what you say here, and I hope I have clarified my
> proposal in my reply to Clay. It is interesting that in some of the
examples
> only the direct discourse introduced by KAI LEGWN/LEGONTES concretizes the
> general concept of the main verb (like Mk 1:14-15), while in other cases
the
> direct quote is preceded by other actions, expressed grammatically by
> circumstantial participles, that further concretize or give a typical
> example of the action for which speech alone does not suffice (like Lk
> 23:36-37).
>
> > Fourth, you are right in saying that KAI is not always coordinate. I
> prefer
> > to think of KAI as "additive". The two conjoined concepts may not be on
> the
> > same level and therefore not be coordinate in our sense of the word. But
> the
> > KAI adds something. That something is often part of the first concept
> which
> > it is joined to. We discussed this some time ago in phrases like "The
> > apostles and Peter" where Peter is a specific example of one of the
> > apostles, or a member of a set, to use mathematical terms.
>
> What would you call the usage of KAI here?
>
> > >
> > > Secondly, I would like to understand the participles that follow the
> main
> > > verb as telic. The agents do not 'appear (in), come forward (to) or
fall
> > > (down upon)' a certain place *as* they are 'proclaiming, beseeching or
> > > praying', but do so *in order to* 'proclaim, beseech or pray'.
> > >
> > > If my attempt at understanding these passages is not misled, I
> > > would like to propose a translation (using Mk 1:14 as an example) such
> as:
> > "Now
> > > after John was handed over, Jesus came into Galilee in order to
proclaim
> > the
> > > gospel of God and this is what he was saying: The time, etc." [I
should
> > note that in
> > > the two passages that have KHRUSSWN (Mt 3:1 and Mk 1:4), the context
> seems
> > > to indicate an ongoing proclamation and LEGWN is rendered according to
> the
> > > aspectually imperfect nature of the activity. The other cases narrate
> > > one-time events and, in my interpretation of these passages, KAI
> > > LEGWN would have to be translated by something like "and this is what
he
> > said:"] I
> > > realize that B-Greek is not a translation list but I am providing
> > > translations in order to better convey my proposed interpretation of
the
> > > Greek of these passages.
> >
> > I would say this is going too far, and not necessary. Since KHRUSSWN is
a
> > present participle, it gives further information about an activity more
or
> > less simultaneous to the main verb HLQEN. LEGWN then gives further
> > information.
> > If I look beyond the Greek grammar for a moment to the underlying
Semitic
> > thought pattern, I see a three-piece generic-specific train. First: He
> came
> > to Galilee. Second: More specifically, he was proclaiming the Gospel
when
> he
> > came. Third: More specifically, he basically said this while proclaiming
> the
> > Gospel.
> >
> > There is an implicit purpose in the text, but I do not think that this
> > purpose is expressed in the grammar the way you suggest. There are
several
> > ways to express purpose in Greek, but I don't see any of them here. One
> > could argue that Semitic KAI may support a purpose connection, but even
> so,
> > the purpose would be derived from the whole context, not the grammar as
> > such.
>
> Yeah, perhaps I was reading too much into the grammar here. You express it
> well by saying there is an implicit but not grammatical purpose int he
text.
> Having re-examined the NT examples of KAI LEGWN/LEGONTES, I see that while
> there is some connection between a main verb of motion and a participle of
a
> verb of communication, to label this as 'telic' would be too restrictive.
>
> Your reference to underlying Semitic thought patterns interests me--is
there
> something to read on this?
>
> Thanks for your insights,
> Mark DelCogliano
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cassian at dellepro.com]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list