[B-Greek] Use of TE solitarium
srunge at logos.com
Mon Nov 3 18:05:05 EST 2008
I lack your breadth of reading to comment on TE, but I offer a suggestion to help reframe the issue. You rightly point out the trouble of oversimplified descriptions in stating, "I find Levinsohn's explanation of SAMENESS vague, so inclusive that it is hard picture how it could be put to any meaningful use."
Let's assume several things. First, let's assume that words mean things, and that different words mean different things. Specifically, that KAI and TE may have semantic overlap, but that they mean or signal distinct things. Furthermore, let's assume that KAI is your most basic coordinating connective (leaving aside asyndeton for now). Based on these assumptions, what discrete feature(s) does TE signal is present that would not have been explicitly signaled by KAI. It would seem that your answer is found in Robertson: "... TE indicates a somewhat closer unity than does KAI." A.T.Robertson 1178. SO TE signals the presence of a closer relationship between the coordinated elements than KAI.
There also seems to be an issue of marking distinct developments that is involved, or what is traditionally termed a 'continuative' function: "TE attaches "an event which is dissimilar to the previous one" (P.O'Rear). It highlights a particularly salient aspect of the unfolding drama, while it also leads into the next stage in the story (Levinsohn p.108)." This suggests that one would also need to decide how TE is not DE, assuming that DE is your most basic marker of development (following Heckert (1996), Levinsohn (2000) and Buth's work in John). DE would simply signal that there was a distinct development, with no judgment about the proximal nature of them. TE, according to O'Rear and Levinsohn, has the added function of signaling a close relationship between the conjoined elements. This seems to be what Iver is getting at in stating TE "indicates overlapping events which are closely attached together. They are intertwined." He does not say anything about them being distinct.
Iver takes issue with the idea that the conjoined elements are of necessity unrelated: "The point is not that they are dissimilar, but that the two clauses are twins and must be read and understood together." I would suggest that the 'dissimilar' nature that Levinsohn suggests is due to them being distinct steps or developments, whether they are dissimilar or not.
So to describe TE by saying what it is NOT:
-It differs from KAI in that it signals a closer relationship between the conjoined elements, as well as marking a distinct development.
-It differs from DE in that is goes beyond simply signaling a new development, but it also explicitly relates them more closely together than DE.
I suggest this analysis based on the dialogue. I have not examined enough instances of TE to have formulated an opinion. It just seemed as though people were beginning to talk past one another when in fact they were much closer than it sounded.
Steven Runge, DLitt (Biblical Languages)
Logos Research Systems, Inc.
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Kline
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:55 PM
To: B-Greek B-Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Use of TE solitarium
On Nov 2, 2008, at 1:25 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> In fairness to Levinsohn I want to quote his initial and basic
> definition of TE from section 6.3, which I agree with:
> "TE solitarium, in contrast [to KAI], adds distinct propositions that
> are characterized by SAMENESS, in the sense that they refer to
> different aspects of the same event, the same occasion, or the same
> pragmatic unit."
> The problem is that he ALSO suggests a different function, which in my
> view is unwarranted and not supported by the examples he quotes to
> support it.
I find Levinsohn's explanation of SAMENESS vague, so inclusive that it is hard picture how it could be put to any meaningful use. Something like ATR's "... TE indicates a somewhat closer unity than does KAI."
>> JOHN 6:16 hWS DE OYIA EGENETO KATEBHSAN hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU EPI THN
>> QALASSAN 17 KAI EMBANTES EIS PLOION HRCONTO PERAN THS QALASSHS EIS
>> KAFARNAOUM. KAI SKOTIA HDH EGEGONEI KAI OUPW ELHLUQEI PROS AUTOUS hO
>> IHSOUS, 18 hH TE QALASSA ANEMOU MEGALOU PNEONTOS DIEGEIRETO. 19
>> ELHLAKOTES OUN hWS STADIOUS EIKOSI PENTE H TRIAKONTA QEWROUSIN TON
>> IHSOUN PERIPATOUNTA EPI THS QALASSHS KAI EGGUS TOU PLOIOU GINOMENON,
>> KAI EFOBHQHSAN. 20 hO DE LEGEI AUTOIS: EGW EIMI: MH FOBEISQE. 21
>> HQELON OUN LABEIN AUTON EIS TO PLOION, KAI EUQEWS EGENETO TO PLOION
>> EPI THS GHS EIS hHN hUPHGON.
>> Note TE in v.18 hH TE QALASSA ANEMOU MEGALOU PNEONTOS DIEGEIRETO. I
>> think this illustrates several features of TE solitarium. TE attaches
>> "an event which is dissimilar to the previous one" (P.O'Rear). It
>> highlights a particularly salient aspect of the unfolding drama,
>> while it also leads into the next stage in the story (Levinsohn
>> p.108). The notion of increased salience involves the extra effort
>> need to process a marked form (TE is marked in reference to KAI) In
>> support for this Levinsohn cites Gutt:1991  (pps.41,103).
> O'Rear is somewhat on the right track, unlike Levinsohn in this quote
> (Levinsohn does in another context explain the correct and basic
> meaning of TE, see above.) The TE solitarium is a conjoiner which must
> be analysed together with and in light of the previous clause or
> KAI OUPW ELHLUQEI PROS AUTOUS hO IHSOUS, 18 hH TE QALASSA ANEMOU
> MEGALOU PNEONTOS DIEGEIRETO
> Jesus had not yet come to them and (at the SAME time) the lake was
> aroused with a strong wind blowing.
> The TE highlights the connection between the fact that they were in
> great danger on the lake and that Jesus had not yet come to them.
> The TE solitarium indicates overlapping events which are closely
> attached together. They are intertwined. The point is not that they
> are dissimilar, but that the two clauses are twins and must be read
> and understood together. For the TE and KAI, the two twin events are
> those followed by TE on the one hand and preceded by KAI on the other.
> The translation "both - and" tries to capture the twin events. TE is a
> tighter connection than KAI. I would not say it is marked in relation
> to KAI, just because it is less commonly used, but rather that it has
> a slightly different function. TE indicates that the previous event is
> not complete in itself, but needs to be completed by the event
> introduced by TE. KAI can conjoin events which are less related or
Another example, this one from Luke 24:20 see Levinsohn:2000 p.109
18 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἷς ὀνόματι
Κλεοπᾶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· σὺ μόνος
παροικεῖς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως
τὰ γενόμενα ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν ταῖς
ἡμέραις ταύταις; 19 καὶ εἶπεν
αὐτοῖς· ποῖα; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· τὰ
περὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ, ὃς
ἐγένετο ἀνὴρ προφήτης δυνατὸς ἐν
ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ
καὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, 20 ὅπως τε
παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ
οἱ ἄρχοντες ἡμῶν εἰς κρίμα θανάτου
καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν. 21 ἡμεῖς δὲ
ἠλπίζομεν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ μέλλων
λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ·
18 APOKRIQEIS DE hEIS ONOMATI KLEOPAS EIPEN PROS AUTON: SU MONOS PAROIKEIS IEROUSALHM KAI OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN TAIS hHMERAIS TAUTAIS 19 KAI EIPEN AUTOIS: POIA hOI DE EIPAN AUTWi: TA PERI IHSOU TOU NAZARHNOU, hOS EGENETO ANHR PROFHTHS DUNATOS EN ERGWi KAI LOGWi ENANTION TOU QEOU KAI PANTOS TOU LAOU, 20 hOPWS TE PAREDWKAN AUTON hOI ARCIEREIS KAI hOI ARCONTES hHMWN EIS KRIMA QANATOU KAI ESTAURWSAN AUTON. 21 hHMEIS DE HLPIZOMEN hOTI AUTOS ESTIN hO MELLWN LUTROUSQAI TON ISRAHL:
Here we have KLEOPAS summarizing TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN TAIS hHMERAIS TAUTAIS. First he introduces the main character in the drama TA PERI IHSOU TOU NAZARHNOU with a breif description of word and deed hOS EGENETO ANHR PROFHTHS DUNATOS EN ERGWi KAI LOGWi ENANTION TOU QEOU KAI PANTOS TOU LAOU followed by a micro-narative [is it narative?] in verse 20 introduced by hOPWS TE.
**a digression** hOPWS TE is a pattern found elsewhere in Koine, e.g., Josephus, Lucian. I have had some difficulty resisting the temptation to analyze hOPWS TE as a unit since this pair is found by the hundreds in TLG-E. Never the less, I will bow to the grammars which all (those on hand) seem to ignore this pairing. **end digression**
Keeping in mind that what we have here is a mixed genre, not really a narrative but including small segments of narrative material, the observation Iver rejects to seems to apply here:
> TE attaches
> "an event which is dissimilar to the previous one" (P.O'Rear). It
> highlights a particularly salient aspect of the unfolding drama, while
> it also leads into the next stage in the story.
The first point "an event which is dissimilar..." is somewhat awkward to apply here since what precedes hOPWS TE ... is a summary of Jesus'
public ministry, not a story. For that reason I am inclined to borrow from H.W.Smyth (#2968) "TE alone sometimes in prose links whole clauses or sentences which serve to explain, amplify, supplement, or to denote a consequence of, what precedes ...". The last part "to denote a consequence of" seems particularly appropriate to Lk 24:19-20. It was the character of Jesus' public ministry summarized in verse 19 which lead to the consequence in verse 20. However, some may think that "consequence" is too strong a term to apply to TE in this context.
The second and third points "highlights a particularly salient aspect"
and "leads into the next stage" seem so obvious that they don't need to be argued. Someone, not doubt, will disagree.
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek