[sword-devel] kjv2003: two splits needed?
Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:10:07 -0600
You should read up on the uses and origins of the article in Greek. Dana
and Mantey have a nice brief description. Robertson and Moulton have quite
a bit more to say.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Eeli Kaikkonen
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:05 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] kjv2003: two splits needed?
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> > ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????????...
> > ALLA TOUTO ESTIN TO EIRHMENON...
> > >But< ALLA
> > >this< TOUTO
> > >is< ESTIN
> > >that< TO
> > >which_was_spoken< EIRHMENON
> > Let me know if you'd tag it differently.
> "eirhmenon" = "that which was spoken". The article tells that the thing
> is something specific or known. "eirhmenon" without the article tells
> us all that "to eirhmenon" says except that it's something known, and we
> have tagged the english definite article with the base word anyways.
> In bad English we could translate "this is _the spoken_". But because
> it's bad English, it's "_that which was spoken_". Some native English
> speaker can tell me if it would be right to say "this is which was
> spoken" and if "that which" means different interpretation of the
> Does this make sense and do I have enough knowledge to talk about
> these things?
> > >hO tags "who" and "am". I have been tagging implied verbs with their
> > >subjects. KAI tags "also".
> > >
> > >I had placed the question of implied verbs to the group. No
> one responded.
> Can you make the question again with some examples (I probably missed
> it)?. Now it is good time to make the consensus. I also want to make it
> right, not just how I think it is right. (Right is how WE think it is
> right, right?)
> Sincerely Yours,
> Eeli Kaikkonen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Suomi Finland