Wonderful, marvellous, beautiful...
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:33 am
- Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Wonderful, marvellous, beautiful...
Fellow readers of Textkit--
I am working on an exercise which appears to be a paraphrasing of a New Testament text--so, don't go looking through your concordances, it won't be there. I am not a matriculating student taking a course for credit, just an individual learner who is curious. But, I have this sentence where the adjective for wonderful is used three times, first, as an adjective for wonderful, amazing, events or things, then for wonderful, amazing words; and lastly--also used as an adjective I THINK (though it seems it would be better stated as an adverb). But, let me show you the sentence.
α?τὸς ἔλεγoν ὑμῖν, ὅτι τῷ λέγειν μόνον θαυμαστὰ ο? γενήσεσθε θαυμαστοὶ,
εἰ μὴ θαυμαστὰ ??γάσεσθε.
My rendering is, "He was telling us himself, that you do not become a wonderful //person?// by saying wonderful things only, if you do not work //in a wonderful manner?//"
But I am not sure how thaumasta--neuter plural--is rendered in the last clause. Any ideas? I thank you--as always--in advance for your help and assistance.
Chris.
I am working on an exercise which appears to be a paraphrasing of a New Testament text--so, don't go looking through your concordances, it won't be there. I am not a matriculating student taking a course for credit, just an individual learner who is curious. But, I have this sentence where the adjective for wonderful is used three times, first, as an adjective for wonderful, amazing, events or things, then for wonderful, amazing words; and lastly--also used as an adjective I THINK (though it seems it would be better stated as an adverb). But, let me show you the sentence.
α?τὸς ἔλεγoν ὑμῖν, ὅτι τῷ λέγειν μόνον θαυμαστὰ ο? γενήσεσθε θαυμαστοὶ,
εἰ μὴ θαυμαστὰ ??γάσεσθε.
My rendering is, "He was telling us himself, that you do not become a wonderful //person?// by saying wonderful things only, if you do not work //in a wonderful manner?//"
But I am not sure how thaumasta--neuter plural--is rendered in the last clause. Any ideas? I thank you--as always--in advance for your help and assistance.
Chris.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
Re: Wonderful, marvellous, beautiful...
I would say, "unless you work wonders."christophershelt wrote:But I am not sure how thaumasta--neuter plural--is rendered in the last clause.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
- IreneY
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
- Location: U.S.A (not American though)
- Contact:
look, this is one of the tricky translation
Thavmastos etc mean both wonderful and to be admired
So, it's more like ...that you will not become wonderful/admired just by talking in a wonderful/admitrable way if you don't work wondefully/admirably.
Now ε?γάζεσθαι here has also a more general meaning. It has more the meaning of acting, than working per se.
Hope that makes sense
Thavmastos etc mean both wonderful and to be admired
So, it's more like ...that you will not become wonderful/admired just by talking in a wonderful/admitrable way if you don't work wondefully/admirably.
Now ε?γάζεσθαι here has also a more general meaning. It has more the meaning of acting, than working per se.
Hope that makes sense
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: Spain
My translation would be:
"I was telling myself to you that you won't be admirable only because you pronounce wonderful/admirable words, but if you make wonderful acts/things". To be admired one has to make wonderful acts, and not only say wonderful things/words.
thaumasta is an adjective in all the cases, but in the neuter plural it is substantivated and the translation would be "wonderful/admirable things". If you like, you can translate it sometimes as an adverb, but it's only your translation, it is clearly an adjective.
"I was telling myself to you that you won't be admirable only because you pronounce wonderful/admirable words, but if you make wonderful acts/things". To be admired one has to make wonderful acts, and not only say wonderful things/words.
thaumasta is an adjective in all the cases, but in the neuter plural it is substantivated and the translation would be "wonderful/admirable things". If you like, you can translate it sometimes as an adverb, but it's only your translation, it is clearly an adjective.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am
hi, i agree with irene above... if θαυμαστά was substantivised as will and ximo suggest, i.e. if it's an external accusative to the verb, it would take an article. there are some examples where an adjective or ppl without an article can function as a substantive, but these are the exception rather than the rule... unlikely in a beginners exercise
θαυμαστά is naturally read i think as an internal acc to the verb, i.e. as an adverb. this also agrees with LSJ on θαυμαστός, which cites the specific usage of the neut pl as an adverb:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... 3D%2347932
maybe the author was trying to give the sense "work wonders", but that's not what the greek says on a first reading i think
θαυμαστά is naturally read i think as an internal acc to the verb, i.e. as an adverb. this also agrees with LSJ on θαυμαστός, which cites the specific usage of the neut pl as an adverb:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... 3D%2347932
maybe the author was trying to give the sense "work wonders", but that's not what the greek says on a first reading i think
- IreneY
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
- Location: U.S.A (not American though)
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
I side with Will and ximo on this. The last occurrence of θαυμαστά is a substantivized adjective. I translate:
He was saying to you, that in only speaking wonders you will not become wonderful, unless you do wonders.
Anarthrous substantivized adjectives, even in the neuter, are not uncommon in the NT.
I might buy Chad's internal accusative argument but for the fact that the NT does use ἔ?γον with ??γάζομαι.
Cordially,
Paul
He was saying to you, that in only speaking wonders you will not become wonderful, unless you do wonders.
Anarthrous substantivized adjectives, even in the neuter, are not uncommon in the NT.
I might buy Chad's internal accusative argument but for the fact that the NT does use ἔ?γον with ??γάζομαι.
Cordially,
Paul
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am
- IreneY
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
- Location: U.S.A (not American though)
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am
oh sorry, i meant "participle". i was wondering, curiosity only (i don't know NT at all) if in NT a participle without an article can commonly function as a substantive, and if so, whether it has the same sense as article + participle, or whether it generally has an "general/indefinite" sense, the way e.g. participles without articles functioning as substantives in sophocles usually have an indefinite sense (Moorhouse, Syntax of Sophocles, page 258). it's interesting to learn about how these things changed after the (limited) period of greek i've concentrated on, thanks, chad.
- IreneY
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
- Location: U.S.A (not American though)
- Contact:
to tell you the truth I don't remember if it is common enough in NT but you should always bare in mind that, although the style of writing is sometimes superb, NT is not the best text of Koine you can find (there are mistakes, due often to translation from the Aramaic language, or to the fact that Greek was not eveyone's mother language -kind like my English)