From: Polycarp66@aol.com
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 19:14:52 EST
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:15 EDT
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/6/2002 6:13:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, fconley@airmail.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">However, I understand CHWRIZESQW to be a third person singular present<BR>
passive imperative. Three questions for the grammarians: (1) Isn't it<BR>
misleading for translations to imply that this is a second person when it is<BR>
not? (2) Would it not be more in harmony with the grammar to render<BR>
something like: "Divorce it must be"; or, "it is permitted." See: "They may<BR>
separate"(JB); "it is permitted"(LB); or, as I think Moulton in his<BR>
Prolegomena implies, p. 172, "If the partner insists on divorce, divorce it<BR>
must be." (3) Is this possibly a case of the divine passive?<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
I think the problem here is trying to understand the grammar from the perspective of the English language (perhaps others as well). In English we associate the imperative with a command, "Do this." We don't understand "Let this be done" as an imperative. Moreover, as you indicated "you" is understood as the subject of such a construction. I would say, however that such constructions as "divorce it must be" are awkward and unEnglish at best. In Latin I believe the statement, "let him . . . " would be considered a jussive (my Latin is extremely rusty, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can speak to this). I think this is about the best we can do in English.<BR>
<BR>
gfsomsel</FONT>
---<BR>
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]<BR>
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>
<BR>
</html>
</x-html>