[b-hebrew] "Species" of the Genitive Waltke/O'Connor
dwashbur at nyx.net
Sat Aug 28 18:33:31 EDT 2004
On Saturday 28 August 2004 11:14, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:
> >This genitive has a syntax function. It binds two constituents together.
> > The semantic significance of the relationship between the two
> > constituents is not indicated in any way, shape or form by the genitive.
> HH: Actually, it is in the sense that the genitive has a range of
> known functions. The nominative has a different range of functions.
> So one can expect the relationship between the two terms to reflect
> one of the known relationships expressed by the genitive. Peter
> advises that students read a great deal, and he is right, but that
> might be the answer to most grammatical questions. Until one knows
> the language extremely well, charts and lists and categories can all
> be of assistance.
This ain't necessarily so. First, attempts to pigeon-hole every usage into
some definable category may or may not work. Second, speaking from
experience, too many teachers learned the categories and then turn around and
teach them as the only possible ranges of usage: "in this passage, we have a
genitive X. Which category is it?" as though the categories have some
intrinsic existence outside themselves. This restricts exegesis, as well as
thinking "outside the box" to an unacceptable degree.
As for the "range of known functions" of any given form, Greek provides a
handy counter-example when it uses an accusative form as the subject of an
infinitive. Unhealthy adherence to these "range of known function" ideas
leads to the kinds of convoluted nonsense that we see in some of the older
Greek grammars that try to explain this particular use of the accusative as
something other than the "subejct" of an infinitive. I believe it was
Dana-Mantey that reached the pinnacle of absurdity in this regard. So these
categories really tend to muddy the exegetical waters more than they clear
"No good. Hit on head." -Gronk
More information about the b-hebrew