[B-Greek] "result" expressed by adverbial participles?

Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 19 20:15:25 EDT 2010


 Ladislav Tichy wrote:

> What about the category "result" of the adverbial participle defined by D.
> B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 637-39). Some of his
> examples seem to be convincing (e.g. Eph 2:15), some not (e.g. Mk 9:7).
> This category is absent e.g. in Smyth, Greek Grammar (nn. 2060-2067).
> Could Wallace's category of result be subsumed under the category of
> purpose?

Hi, Ladislav,

Is Wallace the only guy with speaks of a Participle of Result?
Dana and Mantey give ten categories of the Adverbial Participle,
including the Telic Participle, but they have no Participle of Result.

I would say this category should only exist if it HAS to.  Maybe it
does, but the two examples you cite from Wallace don't give me
much confidence in this category. For KATARGHSAS in Eph 2:15
Temporal or Causal or Telic works just fine for me.

I certainly agree with you that EPISKIAZOUSA in Mk 9:7 is not
a convincing example that this category is needed.  First of all,
this looks not like an Adverbial (Circumstantial) participle at all, but an
Adjectival (Attributive) Participle.  None of the translations make
any attempt to give this a Telic or Result force.   To do the latter,
you would have to say that the cloud did not INTEND to overshadow
them, but it just sort of wound up doing it.

What are Wallace's other examples?  You've given me something
else to look for as I read Greek.  If I find an example of a Participle
which requires this Category, I will let you know.

A while back, someone (it was not me) started a thread called
"Death by Categories."  You probably know that the Greeks
used the same word for "analysis" and "death." (cf 2 Tim 4:6)
Just a coincidence, I suppose.

Carl wrote:

<I would raise the question -- rhetorically, of course, but with purpose or maybe
with  result -- take your choice ;-) Are these distinctions offered by Wallace in 
GGBB more convincing or more readily intelligible than those in the 
treatises of academic Linguists that have been recommended in this forum?>

I guess not, no.  Neither groups of Analytic distinctions are convincing or intelligible.  Neither,
I fear, will lead to Fluency, nor have much value once Fluency is obtained.  Neither will cause
you to live longer.  It will just seem longer.  :)
 Mark L



FWSFOROS MARKOS




________________________________
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: Ladislav Tichy <ladislav.tichy at upol.cz>
Cc: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Mon, April 19, 2010 2:09:29 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] "result" expressed by adverbial participles?

On Apr 19, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Ladislav Tichy wrote:
> What about the category "result" of the adverbial participle defined by D.
> B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 637-39). Some of his
> examples seem to be convincing (e.g. Eph 2:15), some not (e.g. Mk 9:7).
> This category is absent e.g. in Smyth, Greek Grammar (nn. 2060-2067).
> Could Wallace's category of result be subsumed under the category of
> purpose?

I think we've noted in other instances that Wallace's categories and subcategories
are based upon interpretation of the context rather than on anything inherent in
fundamental semantics of a construction. Smyth has done a bit of that sort of
thing, but note what he says in §2069:

"The force of these circumstantial participles does not lie in the participle itself, 
but is derived from the context. Unless attended by some modifying adverb, 
the context often does not decide whether the participle has a temporal, a causal,
a conditional, a concessive force, etc.; and some participles may be referred 
to more than one of the above classes."

That strikes me as a very sensible cautionary note. I personally think that 
Wallace's categories and subcategories involve a catch-22: they seem designed
to train the student to identify readily which category or subcategory of usage
one has encountered and so avoid thinking through the contextual factors in
every exegetical analysis; on the other hand, one must expend considerable
effort on understanding how he goes about analyzing the individual contexts.

I would raise the question -- rhetorically, of course, but with purpose or maybe
with  result -- take your choice ;-) Are these distinctions offered by Wallace in 
GGBB more convincing or more readily intelligible than those in the 
treatises of academic Linguists that have been recommended in this forum?

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)



---
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 mailing list