Comments on: Exceptional thinking-2

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:25:15 +0000

I’ll take a look at the grammar and will look forward to the next post. Thanks, Steve.

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:52:46 +0000

Mike,

Yes, I think he would have picked up on it. There is an example in the grammar from Mark where the synoptic parallel uses ALLA, but Mark uses EI MH (I think it is the one that Robertson cites). If you look at the context, Mark’s version changes the members of the set that is negated, the synoptic parallels do not. The post Wednesday (or whenever I get it finished) has a diagram to describe this, but it needs some tweaking. I am hoping for a Priscilla and Aquila that can pull me aside and straighten me out.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:47:01 +0000

Ahh! That makes perfect sense, especially in light of the modal nature of ει.

But it still seems incredibly subtle for Mark 4:22.

οὐ γάρ ἐστιν τι κρυπτὸν, ἀλλʼ ἵνα ἔλθῃ εἰς φανερόν.

My question is this: Would a second language Greek speaker such as Mark have recognized this sort of subtly?

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:22:06 +0000

Give Seumas a prize! What exceptional thinking! The distinction has to do with the membership of the replacement with the original set. Was it a member of the original (theoretical) set or not? There is a difference in the constraints for each particle. Way to go! Where were you three months ago when I was undergoing hair loss?

By: Seumas

Seumas — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:17:20 +0000

I won’t phrase this right, but from your examples:
αλλα takes the content of one phrase and replaces it completely with another. It’s saying something like, “take out X from the statement, and insert Y”
ει μη is performing a different kind of substitution, at least in the examples you’ve provided, saying something like “statement X is true, only when statement Y which is a restricted negation of X is added”.

I don’t think I’m being clear, but I’m feeling like there is a difference. No doubt you’ll enlighten us on your solution shortly

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:07:49 +0000

Well I know the difference in syntax. αλλα is still functioning as a coordinating conjunction, whereas the ει of ει μη is a modal complementizer. αλλα must always introduce an identical phrase type and ει μη can only introduce a clause, though in the example you’ve give for αλλα, its still two clauses that are coordinated with the second one partially elided.

For a moment, I thought it might be related to the ellipsis, but Mark 4:22 contains an ellipsis with ει μη, so it must be something else.

I know there must be a semantic difference, but I’m at a loss (απορω).

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:07:23 +0000

Let me be more specific in the question: what is the semantic or processing constraint that is unique to each connective? If they completely overlapped, one of them would have dropped out. They each play a unique role. Keep thinking.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:28:57 +0000

I’m going to go out on a limb here…

Is it that in αλλα point/counterpoint sets, the point anticipates and presupposes the counterpoint, whereas with ει μη the point could hypothetically standby itself without the counterpoint?

Perhaps I could have checked a few more examples myself before making this guess…