[sword-devel] kjv2003: two splits needed?

Keith Ralston sword-devel@crosswire.org
Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:54:16 -0600

Thanks for digging, Mike.  I do not have Moulton or Robertson at home.  I
have Dana and Mantey who reference Robertson's page 68 when discussing this.
I haven't had time to run to the library.

I'm not sure about slicing so thinly between semantics and syntax.  I agree
with the general approach we've taken to the article.  Our approach assumes
the use of the article with a substantive.  This is only a fraction of the
article's usage.  I do believe the article to have more flexibility than our
rule allows.  We should tag the exceptions.  We should allow the Greek to do
its thing.  It isn't always as neat as we'd like it to be.

That's my nickel's worth.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org
> [mailto:owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org]On Behalf Of Mike Sangrey
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:54 AM
> To: Sword Development
> Subject: RE: [sword-devel] kjv2003: two splits needed?
> I apologize if I've added to the confusion in something I said which
> wasn't clear.
> Anyway, Moulton's statement surprised me, so I looked up some things in
> Robertson's big tome.  He mentions that "Moulton finds several examples
> in late papyri of hO as relative," so hO as relative is fairly common in
> the Koine.  Moulton is claiming, though, it doesn't occur in the NT.
> Robertson also mentions a scholar named Mayser as inclined to regard hO
> KAI as relative.  He also mentions that hO KAI was very common in NT
> times with what he calls "double names".  He cites Acts 13:9 where we
> have "Saul, also Paul".
> I think the issue really boils down to more of a translation issue than
> a "how does one tag the Greek text" issue.  It's about the differences
> in language; that is, between the original Greek language and how we in
> English do the same thing.  In Greek they didn't need to use a relative
> to do what John does in Rev. 1:9.  They could simply say, EGW IWANNHS,
> hO [KAI] ADELFOS hUMWN.  How do we say the same meaning in English?
> Well, we very likely would use the relative pronoun `who'.  So, how do
> you tag it then?  As an article because that is the syntax the original
> author is using?  Or as a relative, since that is the meaning the
> original author is using?
> Robertson cites Rev. 1:4,8; 11:17 and says, "One either has to say that
> here hO is used as a relative or that it is a relative.  It all comes to
> the same in the end."
> And that really sums up the issue here.  Some Sword users will want
> searches on syntax (that is, a focus on the FORMS).  Others will want to
> search based on semantics (that is, a focus on MEANING).  You need both
> sets of tags and they need to be cleanly seperated--something no Greek
> grammars have been able to do.
> My recommendation, for what it might be worth:  tag it as an article
> since we don't have a clean separation between syntactic and semantic
> tags.
> On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 08:48, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Keith Ralston wrote:
> >
> > > The article hO functions as a relative pronoun in this
> sentence.  You should
> >
> > Do you have any proof for that? Moulton says in his grammar (syntax)
> > that "There is no instance of the article as a reletive pronoun in the
> > NT" (page 37). Nor does BAGD give it that meaning. Is that possible in
> > Koine generally? If it is, then it might be so because our TR text adds
> > "kai" which is not in USB NT and the syntax might be different.
> >
> > Is there anyone amongst us who really knows or is this just guessing? I
> > don't know how competent you others are. I'm just an amateur.
> >
> > > > 	Leave a note, we'll tag it manually.  It's much easier to
> >
> > I still leave it untagged with a note unless someone proves otherwise.
> >
> > > > > In Rev 1:9 there is "kai adelfos hymoon" which is
> translated "who also
> >
> >   Sincerely Yours,
> >       Eeli Kaikkonen <eekaikko@paju.oulu.fi> Suomi Finland
> --
> Mike Sangrey
> msangrey@BlueFeltHat.org
> Landisburg, Pa.
>                         "The first one last wins."
>             "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."