greek help
allll right. I won't tell you all I had 3 years of Greek and then some. I obviously have lost a lot. But when doing a Bible Word Study on the following word, I became perplexed by how it was called the "subject" and "object" in the "Examples" section. Can someone enlighten me, please?
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
Comments
-
This took me a few moments to figure this out. Take a look at the following from OpenText
The word in question is part a group of words that function as a subject and object respectively. I don't know why the program ignored the word's function in the Embedded clauses, which might be the most helpful way to view things.
Prov. 15:23
0 -
Kevin's right. All I can say is that Greek diagrams rock! [:)]
0 -
In eph 3:13, egkakein is in a infinitival clause which is function as a direct object. Below is a formal diagram of it. I love the Lexham SGNT notes in conjunction with OpenText.org and Cascadia diagrams. They definitely rock. I only wish Logos had a complete set of the NT diagram formally like below. They don't though. [:(]
0 -
Kevin, I see a bit more now. I was wondering about it being grouped a bit larger. I am not sure how BWS decides at what level to classify the function of a word. A few levels closer, and you could classify it "Predicator".
Justin, thank you for your input. I have to confess the diagram is to obtuse for me to know what is what by just looking at it.
If "do not lose heart" is the subject of Luke 18:1, is that because it is kind of in apposition to "you."?
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
18:1 is a bit complicated. autous looks like to me an accusative of general reference. Its acting like the subject in the infinitival clause. proseuchesthai and egkakaein are infinitives acting as predicators. The whole thing appears to be an object of the preposition pros. Don't ask me where I got the formal diagram --- it would be against forum rules for me to tell you. [:)]
0 -
Opentext takes the whole thing as a subject ... other diagrams I see take it to be part of an object of preposition (the preposition being pros)
0 -
For example, Cascadia takes the whole thing as an object of preposition (pros).
0 -
Justin Cofer said:
Opentext takes the whole thing as a subject ... other diagrams I see take it to be part of an object of preposition (the preposition being pros)
This is part of Opentext.org's design. Prepositions are always treated as modifiers, never heads of phrases.
As for why Opentext makes it a subject, that's quite easy to see when you ignore the English translation, "must."
δει is normally defined as "it is necessary +infinitive.clause" which in English is nothing more than a dummy subject. Opentext is taking that one step further and saying that the infinitive clause is the subject on the basis that Greek clauses don't get a dummy "it" subject the way English does (e.g. it is necessary, it is raining, there was a man, etc.).
They're proposing that:
"It is necessary that they always prayer and not give up" = "Their constant praying and not giving up is necessary."
And then analyzing the infinitive clause as the subject of δει.
0 -
Thank you all, it is starting to clear up (emphasis mine) [:)]
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Kevin Becker said:
The word in question is part a group of words that function as a subject and object respectively. I don't know why the program ignored the word's function in the Embedded clauses, which might be the most helpful way to view things.
This because Opentext.org treats verbs as the primary element of a word group -- everything else is just a modifier of the verb in their view. This is a common approach in Dependency grammar (see my powerpoint from BibleTech:2010 - http://www.bibletechconference.com/media/2010/MichaelAubrey2010.pdf, unfortunately, the audio didn't come through...).
0 -
thanks.................
0 -
Michael Aubrey said:
(see my powerpoint from BibleTech:2010 - http://www.bibletechconference.com/media/2010/MichaelAubrey2010.pdf, unfortunately, the audio didn't come through...).
Mike, I checked out about half of the slides. Thank you for the link. Though I am challenged in that I don't have your audio context/explanation, and the fact that it's been a while since I dealt with both syntax and semantics--making the whole discussion a bit abstract for me, and I have to really focus to grasp some things being said--at least I could see some of the issues raised (like treating indirect speech as primary clauses, etc).
It would be nice to have clear, concise reviews and summaries of these approaches and their limitations somewhere. We'd be served by having "warning labels" on such works (OpenText etc). I think most people see these syntactical structures and automatically assume they are free from error. There is still a certain amount of subjectivity, however.
You seem to have a good grasp of linguistics issues. Thanks again.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Dan DeVilder said:
Mike, I checked out about half of the slides. Thank you for the link. Though I am challenged in that I don't have your audio context/explanation, and the fact that it's been a while since I dealt with both syntax and semantics--making the whole discussion a bit abstract for me, and I have to really focus to grasp some things being said--at least I could see some of the issues raised (like treating indirect speech as primary clauses, etc).
I'm working on revising my paper based on feedback from the conference, but its not done yet. When its finished, I'll have it posted at the BibleTech site and also on my blog.
Dan DeVilder said:It would be nice to have clear, concise reviews and summaries of these approaches and their limitations somewhere. We'd be served by having "warning labels" on such works (OpenText etc). I think most people see these syntactical structures and automatically assume they are free from error. There is still a certain amount of subjectivity, however.
If you search my blog, for Opentext.org and Cascadia Syntax Graphs you'll find more of my thoughts:
http://evepheso.wordpress.com/?s=opentext.org
http://evepheso.wordpress.com/?s=%22cascadia+syntax+graphs%22
You'll see that I'm highly critical of the theoretical basis behind Opentext -- though I'm generally kinder than I was a year ago.
Dan DeVilder said:You seem to have a good grasp of linguistics issues. Thanks again.
Thanks, linguistics is my academic focus -- I'm working on my MA thesis in linguistics.
0
