A couple questions...

[Ray]

Hi, I have a book called "Teach Yourslef New Testament Greek." It's a good book but it leaves me wondering about a few things that some you will most likely be able to help me with. For example, [face=SPIonic]o( foboj tou kuriou e)stin a)rxh thj sofiaj[/face]

I know that [face=SPIonic]sofiaj[/face] is feminine singular genitive so why doesn't it say [face=SPIonic]taj sofiaj[/face] Also why aren't [face=SPIonic]a)rxh[/face] and [face=SPIonic] sofiaj[/face] in the accusative case sense they describe what [face=SPIonic]o( foboj tou kuriou[/face] is?

Like this for example [face=SPIonic]o( a)nqrwpoj e)stin a)gaqon[/face]

I know that [face=SPIonic]a)gaqon[/face] describes what
[face=SPIonic]o( anqrwpoj[/face] is and [face=SPIonic] arxh thj sofiaj[/face] describes what [face=SPIonic]o( foboj tou kuriou[/face] is. So why is [face=SPIonic]arxh[/face] in the nominitave and [face=SPIonic]sofiaj[/face] in the genitive instead of accusative like [face=SPIonic]agaqon[/face]


I hope that is not too confusing. Maybe it's a singularity or maybe I dont know what the heck I am talking about. Either way help would be appreciated.

[klewlis]

Hi there :)

Hi, I have a book called "Teach Yourslef New Testament Greek." It's a good book but it leaves me wondering about a few things that some you will most likely be able to help me with. For example, [face=SPIonic]o( foboj tou kuriou e)stin a)rxh thj sofiaj[/face]

I know that [face=SPIonic]sofiaj[/face] is feminine singular genitive so why doesn't it say [face=SPIonic]taj sofiaj[/face]

[face=SPIonic]taj[/face] is the feminine accusative plural form, while [face=SPIonic]thj[/face] is the feminine genitive singular form. The article doesn't necessarily match the ending of the noun, but rather the gender, number, and case of the noun.

Also why aren't [face=SPIonic]a)rxh[/face] and [face=SPIonic] sofiaj[/face] in the accusative case sense they describe what [face=SPIonic]o( foboj tou kuriou[/face] is?

[face=SPIonic]a)rxh[/face] is in the nominative because of the verb--when you have a "being" verb ([face=SPIonic]ei)mi[/face]), the nouns on both sides are nominative (it's acting like an equals sign). The second noun is said to be the "complement" to the first, rather than an object, which would take accusative. [face=SPIonic] sofiaj[/face] is genitive because it is modifying [face=SPIonic]a)rxh[/face].

Like this for example [face=SPIonic]o( a)nqrwpoj e)stin a)gaqon[/face]

I know that [face=SPIonic]a)gaqon[/face] describes what
[face=SPIonic]o( anqrwpoj[/face] is and [face=SPIonic] arxh thj sofiaj[/face] describes what [face=SPIonic]o( foboj tou kuriou[/face] is. So why is [face=SPIonic]arxh[/face] in the nominitave and [face=SPIonic]sofiaj[/face] in the genitive instead of accusative like [face=SPIonic]agaqon[/face]

That adjective should be in the nominative as well (can anyone name exceptions to this, or why they might have done it that way?).

Does that help?

[Ray]

Thanks, that helps alot. And yeah I messed up it should have been [face=SPIonic]a)gaqoj[/face] Just a newbie typo.

[Geoff]

Hello Ray,

Keep asking. This is a great place for it. I'm a Greek beginner, and your questions help me learn.

[Skylax]

Hello, hello !

Hi there

Like this for example [face=SPIonic]o( a)nqrwpoj e)stin a)gaqon[/face]

I know that [face=SPIonic]a)gaqon[/face] describes what
[face=SPIonic]o( anqrwpoj[/face] is and [face=SPIonic] arxh thj sofiaj[/face] describes what [face=SPIonic]o( foboj tou kuriou[/face] is. So why is [face=SPIonic]arxh[/face] in the nominitave and [face=SPIonic]sofiaj[/face] in the genitive instead of accusative like [face=SPIonic]agaqon[/face]

That adjective should be in the nominative as well (can anyone name exceptions to this, or why they might have done it that way?).

Does that help?

In this sentence, [face=SPIonic]a)gaqon[/face] is no accusative but a neuter nominative, the meaning being "man is a good thing". This is a frequent way of expression.



[face=SPIonic]Xai/rete[/face]

[klewlis]

In this sentence, [face=SPIonic]a)gaqon[/face] is no accusative but a neuter nominative, the meaning being "man is a good thing". This is a frequent way of expression.
[face=SPIonic]Xai/rete[/face] :)

really? I don't think I've ever noticed that before (but perhaps I am merely unobservant...). I would still expect it to be masculine to match the masculine subject... but I guess it depends on the context. ;)

[Skylax]

It is especially frequent in sentences having a general meaning, such as

[face=SPIonic]kalo\n h( a)lh/qeia[/face] "Truth is a beautiful thing",
[face=SPIonic]deino\n oi( polloi/[/face] "The crowd is a terrible thing"...

You have probably encountered it already without noticing it, just as I had encountered English forms like "don't it..." in the 3rd person singular without noticing any peculiarity.

[face=SPIonic]sfalero\n h(gemw\n qrasu/j[/face] (Euripides)
"Rashness in a leader causes failure" (Transl. Coleridge on Perseus), lit. "a rash leader is a slippery thing."

[klewlis]

You have probably encountered it already without noticing it, just as I had encountered English forms like "don't it..." in the 3rd person singular without noticing any peculiarity.

Except that "don't it" is extremely poor english. Is our greek usage here proper?

[Skylax]

Except that "don't it" is extremely poor english. Is our greek usage here proper?

Excuse me, I would like to answer, but I don't understand the question.

About "don't..." 3rd pers sing, it is found in some American songs. I was told it was once (before 1800) standard English and it remains a dialectal usage.

cf. http://www.bartleby.com/68/88/1988.html

[klewlis]

"In Formal and Semiformal writing and at the Oratorical and most Planned and Impromptu levels, it don’t is Substandard."

Even in casual, everyday speech, I only hear this usage from people with poor grammar. It may have been common once, but now it is just bad. It isn't even one of those "acceptable" grammatical mistakes that you would hear, say, from a newscaster (not in Canada, anyway... though I could imagine it being more common in certain areas of the US). :)

[Geoff]

Expressions like "don't it" and "aint" are rapidly becoming emphatic forms of their proper counterparts. They are intentionally used by people who know better to mark a significant point in speaking.

But that's in Texas

[klewlis]

yeah, Texas is one of *those* regions. ;)

[Geoff]

Yup 'em r us -

Something else is the use of double negatives for emphasis along with the "it don't" -

You can say "The conclusions reached thereby are utterly void of any logical basis" or you can be emphatic and say "It don't make no sense!"

But in Greek Double negatives usually build rather than cancel like in proper English.

Well, I've got to go, my porch fell and 20 dogs died, right in the middle of Nascar too!