From: Jonathan Robie (jwrobie@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Jan 29 1997 - 11:05:32 EST
At 10:37 AM 1/29/97 -0500, Paul Zellmer wrote:
>I assume that you are trying to connect the POIWN with the prepositional
>(EIS) phrase. Try letting the EIS phrase be the result of KTISHi and
>picture a minor break, a comma, if you will, before a parallel clause,
>POIWN EIRHNHN. Does this make more sense now?
Boing! Yes, it makes perfect sense now.
>I guess Paul could have written: hINA POIWN EIRHNHN TOUS DUO KTISHi EN
>AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQRWPON. This probably would have meant the
>same, at least on the surface. My guess is the relative importance of
>the parts would have changed, but that's another can of worms.
I *like* this can of worms. What is the difference in emphasis between the
two formulations:
1. hINA POIWN EIRHNHN TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQRWPON
2. hINA TOUS DUW KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQRWPON POIWN EIRHNHN
Any takers?
Jonathan
***************************************************************************
Jonathan Robie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703
Ph: 919.598.5728 Fax: 919.598.6728
email: jwrobie@mindspring.com, jonathan@poet.com
http://www.poet.com <--- shockwave enabled!
***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:04 EDT