From: Micheal Palmer (mwpalmer@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Jan 24 1997 - 00:04:47 EST
At 9:03 AM -0500 1/22/97, Randy Leedy wrote in response to Lee Martin:
>I would modify your model so it reads like this:
>
> A B C D
>the praise of the glory of the grace of him
>
>B, as I take it, is the abstraction modifying A, so I get "glorious
>praise." "Grace" could, I suppose, be taken as an abstraction, but it
>certainly doesn't modify "praise," and it seems awkward to me to take
>it as modifying "glory." Your "gracious glory" just doesn't cut it
>with me, but I can't quite put my finger on the reason. Rather,
>"grace" seems to me to be best taken as an objective genitive after
>"praise," and "His" as adnominal to "grace." The phrase ends up, in
>my view, as signifying "the glorious praise of His grace."
>
This proposal looks really interesting to me. I was myself about to point
out that one of the genitives might be taken as an objective genitive when
I read Randy's response. Randy's own proposal raises a question for me,
however. Do we have any clear examples where a genitive must be taken as a
"adjectival" genitive modifying a deverbal noun like EPAINON ("glorious
praise" in Randy's proposal)?
I'm not implying that we don't. I just can't remember them right off hand.
What factors would argue for seeing DOXHS as a modifier of EPAINON rather
than THS CARITOS?
If I'm asking about something which has already been discussed, just refer
me to the archives. I've just started following this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College
mwpalmer@earthlink.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:03 EDT