[B-Greek] DOKIMOS GENOMENOS in JAMES 1:12

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 27 13:32:07 EDT 2007


Thank you Carl and Iver,

JAMES 1:12 MAKARIOS ANHR hOS hUPOMENEI PEIRASMON, hOTI DOKIMOS  
GENOMENOS LHMYETAI TON STEFANON THS ZWHS hON EPHGGEILATO TOIS  
AGAPWSIN AUTON.

On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> My view of this is that
> (a) the subject of LHMYETAI is ANHR hOS hUPOMENEI PEIRASMON;

On Jul 26, 2007, at 11:39 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> From the standpoint of general descriptive linguistics, every verb  
> has a subject, but it may be implicit or only marked by an affix on  
> the verb.
> A clause does not fill a subject slot except possibly in special  
> circumstances of infinitives and impersonal constructions. The way  
> I would analyze this text, the subordinated clause doesn't fill any  
> syntactical slot in the following clause, since it is not a  
> constituent of that clause, but a subordinate clause in its own  
> right. (Constituents of clauses are phrases.) There is no explicit  
> subject for LHMYETAI except the third person suffix. The implicit  
> subject for both this verb and the participle is ANHR, which is  
> carried over from the previous clause, and this word could have  
> been repeated. However, there is no need to repeat it.

Could we say that ANHR and the implicit subject of LHMYETAI are  
coreferential? Would that reconcile the apparent difference between  
Carl's and Iver's statements? I am a little bit hesitant to accept  
the notion that a clause cannot fill a slot in another clause. It  
appears to contradict some fundamental conceptions about embedded and/ 
or recursive structures. It could be that I am misreading Iver's  
intended meaning here.

Carl wrote:
>>
>> Another question, does the nominative participle clause fill a
>> syntactical slot in the following clause? Is it the subject of
>> LHMYETAI or is the subject of DOKIMOS GENOMENOS coreferential with
>> the subject of LHMYETAI?
>
> I think they're coreferential and that their identity is to be read  
> from ANHR hOS hUPOMENEI PEIRASMON; after all, the hOTI clause  
> surely explains the reason why that ANHR is MAKARIOS.

JAMES 1:12 MAKARIOS ANHR hOS hUPOMENEI PEIRASMON, hOTI DOKIMOS  
GENOMENOS LHMYETAI TON STEFANON THS ZWHS hON EPHGGEILATO TOIS  
AGAPWSIN AUTON.

What impact would it have on our analysis if we insert hO in hOTI hO  
DOKIMOS GENOMENOS LHMYETAI ... ?  Would we say that hO DOKIMOS  
GENOMENOS fills the subject slot for LHMYETAI? This was the question  
lurking in the back of my mind when I submitted my original post.

Carl said:
> (b) DOKIMOS GENOMENOS is circumstantial and probably best  
> understood as the protasis of a future-more-vivid condition,  
> equivalent to EAN DOKIMOS GENHTAI ("if he proves that he has 'the  
> right stuff,' ... ).

I agree and for that reason I would have to take exception to Iver's  
comment:

On Jul 26, 2007, at 11:39 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> That it is fronted in my view only suggests that there is a greater  
> emphasis on this condition relative to the result than if it had  
> not been fronted.

It seems to me that the position of hO DOKIMOS GENOMENOS relative to  
LHMYETAI has to do with information flow, a topic that Steve Runge  
brought up in our recent discussion of fronted participles. IMHO the  
position of hO DOKIMOS GENOMENOS relative to LHMYETAI cannot be  
adequately explained on the basis of "greater emphasis". Something  
more than that is going on here.

Carl and Iver, thank you for your valuable insights,

Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list