[B-Greek] 2 Cor 4:15 - word order
toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Sat Dec 27 20:42:02 EST 2003
Thank you, Ann. Perhaps then, if Paul had intended DIA to be construed
with THN EUCARISTIAN
he might have written DIA THN EUCARISTIAN TOU PLEIONWN? What bothers me
is that, in
the absence of contextual indicators to the contrary, it seems perfectly
natural in 2 Cor 4:15 to take DIA
with TWN PLEIONWN , and assume that THN EUCARISTIAN is the direct
object of PERISSEUHi.
Why not make clear that DIA is to be construed with THN EUCARISTIAN, if
that is what is intended?
Isn't it most natural to take DIA with a possible object that
immediately follows? I guess it depends how
a sentence is processed by the mind; anyone out there into cognitive
Ann Nyland wrote:
>No, that's a screamingly classical Greek word order, natural a few hundred
>years before Paul's time.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul Toseland" <toseland at blueyonder.co.uk>
>To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; <mrt at hisurfer.net>;
><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 8:15 AM
>Subject: [B-Greek] 2 Cor 4:15 - word order
>>I just wrote:
>> >I just wonder whether, if Paul had intended this, he would more
>> >naturally have said 'DIA THN TOU PLEIONWN EUCARISTIAN'?
>>I meant, of course,
>>I just wonder whether, if Paul had intended this, he would more
>>naturally have said 'DIA THN TWN PLEIONWN EUCARISTIAN'?
>>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>>B-Greek mailing list
>>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the B-Greek