Is GAR a coordinating or subordinating conjunction?

From: Michael Luper (mluper@emmanuel-college.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 05 1999 - 16:17:08 EST

I am working through Romans for a class I am teaching next semester. I have
come across an issue that has frequently created questions in my mind and I
thought I would throw it out to those on the list in the hopes that I might
gain some clarity.

In many of the Greek Grammars that I have used over the years, GAR is
presented as a "coordinating conjunction" which is defined as one that
connects units of equal structure, as opposed to other conjunctions such as
hINA that are classified as "subordinating conjunctions" which are defined
as conjunctions that connect dependent clauses to main clauses. Richard
Young, in his Grammar, does address the problem of GAR functioning in both
roles as a coordinating conjunction "to link independent units" and as a
subordinating conjunction "to introduce dependent clauses." His brief
explanation notwithstanding (pp. 182), it seems to me that often the
determination of a clause in which GAR is used as being dependent or
independent is a matter of opinion on how dependent or independent one
thinks the following thought actually is, rather than on strict grammatical
rules or indicators in the text.

Let me illustrate the point I am trying to make. In Rom. 1:16-17 there are
three uses of GAR (typically understood to be used as coordinating
conjunctions) and one use of KATHWS (understood to be a subordinating
conjunction). How is one to know that in Paul's mind the three clauses
introduced by GAR are any more independent than the clause introduced by
KATHWS? Consider the three statements introduced by GAR:
         "For (GAR) I am not ashamed of the gospel"
        "For (GAR) it is the power of God for salvation"
        "For (GAR) in it the righteousness of God is revealed"

These statements seem every bit as dependent on something written previously
as the statement
        "as (KATHWS) it is written"

Thinking that a better grasp of English grammar on this matter might shed
some light, I went back to a basic English Grammar book and found that "for"
was understood to be a coordinating conjunction and was used in the
following sentence:
        "Jack went to bed early, 'for' he was very tired."

Then, I looked up subordinating conjunctions and found the following
sentence:
        "Gerald read the book 'because' I recommended it."

In both of these sentences it would appear that "for" and "because" are
serving the same function, to introduce a cause or reason, and yet they are
classified differently.

Perhaps my problem with GAR goes back to a faulty training in English
grammar, but if someone could shed some light on this matter I would
appreciate it.

Thanks,

Michael Luper
Emmanuel College
http://www.emmanuel-college.edu/scm 

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:48 EDT