From: Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Mon Jan 22 1996 - 10:07:49 EST
I would like to add further to my response to Alan Brehm's fine post. The
statement about Porter, "Porter on the one hand, and A. T. Robertson or
Brooks and Winbery on the other hand, is that BDF and Porter separate the
functions of nouns with the preposition from those functions that relate
primarily to the case of the noun, while ATR and B-W incorporate the two
into one system (although ATR also treats the prepositions separately)."
James Brooks and I did deal with the case of nouns and the prepositions
together. We then included a complete of proper prepositions and improper
prepositions with references to the categories with which they were used
and the pages of the examples. Only in limited areas did we have to have
categories that involved only the use of prepositions with nouns (the
ablative [genitive], pp. 27-30 and the accusative, pp. 59-63). In all
other categories we found the same function both with and without the
preposition. For the ablative (genitive) of agency. The substantive in
the second inflected form indicates the agent of action indicated by an
adjective or participle or verb that implies passive action. eg. w/out a
prep. Rom. 1:7 AGAPHTOIS QEOU "beloved by God" and James 1:13 APO QEOU
PEIRAZOMAI "I am tempted by God." The function is the same in both,
agency.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT