Change from 3rd to 1st person.

[Bert]

The first half of John 8:40 reads;
νύν δὲ ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθ?ωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα,
It seems strange that Jesus speaks about himself in the third person (ἄνθ?ωπον) and then in the first. (λελάληκα)
Is this something that happens more in Greek? I can't find a lot about this particular aspect which makes me think that it is not all that rare. I can't remember seeing it before.

[annis]

[annis]

Modern English forces us to make the verb third person after a relative,

Of course I think of exceptions after saving the post.

"I, who am a grammatician" not "I, who is a grammatician." But not "she spoke to me, who am a grammatician," but "she spoke to you, who are a grammatician." So if the antecedent looks like nominative, and comes immediately before the relative, the verb agrees with the antecedent.

[aso]

finite verbs and personal pronouns are the only words that have "person" in them. ἄνθ?ωπος could agree with anything singular, whether masculine or feminine (!), or first, second, or third person. same thing (minus feminine) with οὗτος.

[chad]

hi bert, also always remember your iliad cheers chad.

1.37 κλῦθί μοι ἀ?γυ?ότοξ', ὃς Χ?ύσην ἀμφιβέβηκας

[Bert]

I didn't formulate my question very well (and I am not sure if I can make it clearer.)
Interacting with your replies may help.
First; I don't see a problem with 'Our Father who art in heaven' Our Father is vocative, so art being second person is quite natural.

Smyth 2501. b is interesting but I am not sure if the examples are the same.
I have no problem understanding ο?κ οἶδ' ὅστις ἄνθ?ωπος γεγένημαι
'What sort of man' is the predicate nominative of γεγένημαι and 'I' is its subject. The whole relative clause is the object of οἶδα.

In John 8:40 I was debating where to put the comma; before or after ἄνθ?ωπον. If after, then only ἄνθ?ωπον is in apposition to με. You seek to kill me, a man. I don't think that's it.
If before than the whole relative clause describes με. Maybe the comma issue just muddies the waters. 'Man in appostion to 'me' thus accusative and 'who' is the subject of 'spoken' thus nomanitive.

In Chad's example from the iliad, the pronoun does not refer to the word in the accusative (like in John 8:40.) The verb is 2nd person, just what we would expect because he is addressing Apollo.

aso; In English a noun can't agree with a verb in any person can it?
I can't seem to translate this verse that way anyway.

[chad]

hi bert, i think i get your qn now, it's a little bit like Βατ?αχομυομαχία 17-18 (although the case of the predicate is of course different, following εἰμί):

εἰμὶ δ' ?γὼ βασιλεὺς Φυσίγναθος, ὃς κατὰ λίμνην
τιμῶμαι

the predicate of the main clause βασιλε?ς (like ἄνθ?ωπον) is general (the species rather than the individual) and yet the verb in the relative clause is 1st person.

in your quote, if ἄνθ?ωπον wasn't there, the sentence would pass by without notice. maybe the author inserted it because he felt strange putting a nominative relative straight after a transitive verb, and instead of repeating the infinitive's predicate με he chose another word for stylistic reasons... not sure sorry, i'll look out for it in reading though, thanks for pointing it out

[Chris Weimer]

Sorry annis, but forcing the third person after a relative always sounds strange to me.

It is not I who am crazy, it is I who am mad!

Often, though, and far better sounding to my ear, is to adopt the relative clause of characteristic.

You, a man who isn't royal, will rule one day.