[B-Greek] Galatians 1:11: Accusative or nominative?
frjsilver at optonline.net
frjsilver at optonline.net
Thu Jul 12 20:20:29 EDT 2007
This is an example of a cognate subject: 'I realize that the gospel gospelled by me....'
Of course, in English we prefer to avoid such redundance, so since we know how to take apart the verb EUAGGELIZW and the nouns formed on it (or vice-versa) and work with their components,we might want to say something like 'the good news I proclaimed/announced/of which I was the messenger", etc.
Father James Silver
----- Original Message -----
From: Ulrik Petersen
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:28 pm
Subject: [B-Greek] Galatians 1:11: Accusative or nominative?
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Dear all,
> I was analyzing Galatians chapter 1 today using my Linguistic
> and I came across this text in Galatians 1:11:
> GNWRIZW GAR hUMIN ADELFOI TO EUAGGELION TO EUAGGELISQEN hUP EMOU
> OUK ESTIN KATA ANQRWPON
> I was trying to grasp the syntactic function of
> TO EUAGGELION TO EUAGGELISQEN hUP EMOU
> whether it is the subject of the copula "ESTIN", or whether it
> something else.
> I would translate this something like the following:
> For I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel which was
> preached by
> me is not from man.
> That is, I would not translate:
> For I make the gospel which was preached by me known to you,
> that it is not from man.
> In the second translation, "the gospel which was preached by me"
> is seen
> as the object of the verb GNWRIZW. In the first, it is the
> subject of
> the copula verb ESTIN. The handful of translations that I
> checked all
> agreed with the first reading.
> My question is, if the first reading is valid (namely subject of
> why do many morphological databases all agree that TO
> EUANGGELION TO
> EUAGGELISQEN hUP EMOU is *accusative* rather than nominative?
> My tentative analysis can be seen here:
> If you look at the picture, you will see that I have tentatively
> analyzed GNWRIZW GAR hUMIN, ADELFOI, as a clause in itself, with
> EUAGGELION TO EUAGGELISQEN hUP EMOU as the subject of the copula
> with KATA ANQRWPWN as the "predicate complement."
> One argument against this analysis would be that hOTI normally
> introduces a clause (at least in the meaning in which it appears
> and that it normally does not stand in the middle of a clause,
> but only
> near the beginning. But some linguistic theories (e.g., van
> Role and Reference Grammar) would allow for the noun phrase [TO
> EUAGGELION TO EUAGGELISQEN hUP EMOU] to be outside the clause,
> in a
> "left detached position", where it would function as a kind of
> introduction to the clause, or else in the "Pre Core Slot".
> "Left detached position" occurs in English in examples such as
> "As for
> me, I would never deign to analyze a left detached position as
> In this example, "As for me" is, according to Role and Reference
> Grammar, in the "left detached position"; it is outside the main
> and acts as an introduction.
> "Pre Core Slot" might be a more plausible analysis within the
> of Role and Reference Grammar, provided it could be demonstrated
> hOTI could stand at the beginning of the Core of the clause
> rather than
> at the beginning of the clause itself.
> I may be way off base here, so please help me out. Comments
> would be
> greatly appreciated. I am not looking so much for answers
> within the
> paradigm of Role and Reference Grammar, as I am looking for
> from either morphology or "traditional syntax".
> Please CC my email address if you reply, as I only receive the B-
> Ulrik Petersen
>  (including Friberg and Friberg's AGNT, Robinson's Westcott-
> Robinson's parsed Byzantine text, and my collaborator, James
> Ulrik Petersen, Aalborg University, Denmark
> http://ulrikp.org -- Homepage
> http://emdros.org -- Emdros is a text database system
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the B-Greek