καὶ γὰρ εἰ [ἐὰν] concessive clauses

Greek Learning Greek
1

concessive clauses
A question raised on b-greek started me searching grammars on concessive clauses and other constructions which take the form καὶ γὰρ εἰ or καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν.


E.Med 463-464
καὶ γὰρ εἰ σύ με στυγεῖς, οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην σοὶ κακῶς φρονεῖν ποτε.

Even if you hate me,
I could never bear you ill-will.
—David Kovacs

E.Med 1249-1250
καὶ γὰρ εἰ κτενεῖς σφ᾽, ὅμως
φίλοι γ᾽ ἔφυσαν:

for even if you kill them,
they were dear to you.
—David Kovacs

The text cited from the NT was

1Cor. 14:7 ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα, εἴτε αὐλὸς εἴτε κιθάρα, ἐὰν διαστολὴν τοῖς φθόγγοις μὴ δῷ, πῶς γνωσθήσεται τὸ αὐλούμενον ἢ τὸ κιθαριζόμενον; 8 καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν ἄδηλον σάλπιγξ φωνὴν δῷ, τίς παρασκευάσεται εἰς πόλεμον;

RSV: 1Cor. 14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will any one know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

The construction καὶ … ἐὰν w/subjunctive is used in concessive clauses which take the form of third class conditionals. Two questions on my mind. Does the postpositive γὰρ cause problems for a concessive reading? See David Kovak’s from Medea renderings cited above.

I am also wondering what is going on in 1Cor. 14:7-8. Not a concessive, that seems certain. One scholar H.A.W. Meyer attempted to give it an adversative sense by claiming the trumpet was a more extreme example than either the flute or harp. Nobody else I looked at understood the passage that way.

I read a ton of NT Greek grammars on concessive and καὶ … εἰ [ἐὰν] in various permutations and none of them, not a single one cited 1Cor. 14:8 anywhere in the grammar. Not only that but none of the commentaries talk about the syntax here. So it must be perfectly obvious to everyone what is going on here since there is no discussion of it. I had to go to Smyth and Cooper to find suitable examples.

Looking forward to being enlightened on this.

P.S.

Also found καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν several times in Aristotle but not wanting to mess with philosophy texts I passed them by. Here are the passages for anyone who wants to look.


Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Physica (0086: 031)
“Aristotelis physica”, Ed. Ross, W.D.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950, Repr. 1966 (1st edn. corr.).
Bekker page 198b, line 14

τιον οὕτως, οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρὸς τὴν ἑκάστου οὐσίαν.
Λεκτέον δὴ πρῶτον μὲν διότι ἡ φύσις τῶν ἕνεκά του
αἰτίων, ἔπειτα περὶ τοῦ ἀναγκαίου, πῶς ἔχει ἐν τοῖς φυσι-
κοῖς· εἰς γὰρ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ἀνάγουσι πάντες, ὅτι ἐπειδὴ
τὸ θερμὸν τοιονδὶ πέφυκεν καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν καὶ ἕκαστον δὴ τῶν
τοιούτων, ταδὶ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστὶ καὶ γίγνεται· καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν
ἄλλην αἰτίαν εἴπωσιν, ὅσον ἁψάμενοι χαίρειν ἐῶσιν, ὁ μὲν
τὴν φιλίαν καὶ τὸ νεῖκος, ὁ δὲ τὸν νοῦν· ἔχει δ’ ἀπορίαν τί
κωλύει τὴν φύσιν μὴ ἕνεκά του ποιεῖν μηδ’ ὅτι βέλτιον, ἀλλ’
ὥσπερ ὕει ὁ Ζεὺς οὐχ ὅπως τὸν σῖτον αὐξήσῃ, ἀλλ’ ἐξ
ἀνάγκης (τὸ γὰρ ἀναχθὲν ψυχθῆναι δεῖ, καὶ τὸ ψυχθὲν

Go to Context


Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Physica
Bekker page 219a, line 4

νειν, ὅταν δ’ αἰσθώμεθα καὶ ὁρίσωμεν, τότε φαμὲν γεγονέναι
χρόνον, φανερὸν ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνευ κινήσεως καὶ μεταβολῆς
χρόνος. ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὔτε κίνησις οὔτ’ ἄνευ κινήσεως ὁ χρόνος
ἐστί, φανερόν· ληπτέον δέ, ἐπεὶ ζητοῦμεν τί ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος,
ἐντεῦθεν ἀρχομένοις, τί τῆς κινήσεώς ἐστιν. ἅμα γὰρ κινή-
σεως αἰσθανόμεθα καὶ χρόνου· καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν ᾖ σκότος καὶ
μηδὲν διὰ τοῦ σώματος πάσχωμεν, κίνησις δέ τις ἐν τῇ
ψυχῇ ἐνῇ, εὐθὺς ἅμα δοκεῖ τις γεγονέναι καὶ χρόνος.
ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ὅταν γε χρόνος δοκῇ γεγονέναι τις, ἅμα
καὶ κίνησίς τις δοκεῖ γεγονέναι. ὥστε ἤτοι κίνησις ἢ τῆς
κινήσεώς τί ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος. ἐπεὶ οὖν οὐ κίνησις, ἀνάγκη τῆς

Go to Context


Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Politica (0086: 035)
“Aristotelis politica”, Ed. Ross, W.D.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957, Repr. 1964.
Bekker page 1318a, line 23

τὸ δημοτικὸν δίκαιον, ἢ μᾶλλον ἡ κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος; φασὶ
γὰρ οἱ δημοτικοὶ τοῦτο δίκαιον ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τοῖς πλείοσιν,
οἱ δ’ ὀλιγαρχικοὶ ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τῇ πλείονι οὐσίᾳ· κατὰ
πλῆθος γὰρ οὐσίας φασὶ κρίνεσθαι δεῖν. ἔχει δ’ ἀμφότερα
ἀνισότητα καὶ ἀδικίαν· εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὅ τι ἂν οἱ ὀλίγοι, τυ-
ραννίς (καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν εἷς ἔχῃ πλείω τῶν ἄλλων εὐπόρων,
κατὰ τὸ ὀλιγαρχικὸν δίκαιον ἄρχειν δίκαιος μόνος), εἰ
δ’ ὅ τι ἂν οἱ πλείους κατ’ ἀριθμόν, ἀδικήσουσι δημεύοντες τὰ
τῶν πλουσίων καὶ ἐλαττόνων, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον.
τίς ἂν οὖν εἴη ἰσότης ἣν ὁμολογήσουσιν ἀμφότεροι, σκεπτέον
ἐξ ὧν ὁρίζονται δικαίων ἀμφότεροι. λέγουσι γὰρ ὡς ὅ τι

Go to Context


Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Problemata (0086: 036)
“Aristotelis opera, vol. 2”, Ed. Bekker, I.
Berlin: Reimer, 1831, Repr. 1960.
Bekker page 919b, line 27

λαιόν, τὰ δὲ ἑπτὰ ἔχει μέσον.
Διὰ τί ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ ἀπᾴδουσιν οἱ πλεῖστοι; πότερον ὅτι
ῥᾷον ὀξὺ ᾆσαι ἢ βαρύ; ἢ ὅτι χεῖρον τοῦ βαρέος; ἁμαρτία
δέ ἐστι τοῦ χείρονος πρᾶξις.
Διὰ τί τὸ ἀκουστὸν μόνον ἦθος ἔχει τῶν αἰσθητῶν; καὶ
γὰρ ἐὰν ᾖ ἄνευ λόγου μέλος, ὅμως ἔχει ἦθος· ἀλλ’
οὐ τὸ χρῶμα οὐδὲ ἡ ὀσμὴ οὐδὲ ὁ χυμὸς ἔχει. ἢ ὅτι κί-
νησιν ἔχει μόνον οὐχί, ἣν ὁ ψόφος ἡμᾶς κινεῖ; τοιαύτη
μὲν γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει· κινεῖ γὰρ καὶ τὸ
χρῶμα τὴν ὄψιν· ἀλλὰ τῆς ἑπομένης τῷ τοιούτῳ ψόφῳ
αἰσθανόμεθα κινήσεως. αὕτη δὲ ἔχει ὁμοιότητα ἔν τε

Go to Context


Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Problemata
Bekker page 924b, line 3

τεύσας, ὅταν ὡραῖοι ὦσι, καθεὶς εἰς τὸ φρέαρ ἀποστεγάσῃ,
γίνονται δι’ ἔτους χλωροί; ἢ διότι ἥ τε ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος ἀτμὶς
ψύχουσα κωλύει ξηραίνεσθαι καὶ παρέχει θάλλοντα, καὶ
τὸ ἀποστέγειν τούτους καὶ τὰ πνεύματα τρέφει τὰ ηὐξημένα;
τοῦ δὲ διαμένειν αἴτιον τὸ ἔχειν τροφὴν ἐωμένων τῶν ῥιζῶν.
καὶ γὰρ ἐάν τις ἀφελὼν τὴν βλάστην, ὅταν καρποφορήσωσι,
καὶ ἀποτεμὼν περισάξῃ καὶ καταπατήσῃ τὴν γῆν περὶ τὰς
ῥίζας, πρωΐμους οἴσει σικύους, ὡς δυναμένων σώζεσθαι τῶν
ῥιζῶν· οὐ γὰρ ἔσται σίκυος τῶν προετείων. θᾶττον δὲ αὐτοὶ
τῶν σπειρομένων οἴσουσι καρπὸν διὰ τὸ πολὺ προϋπάρχειν
τοῦ ἔργου τῇ φύσει τὰς ῥίζας, τοῖς δὲ σπειρομένοις δεῖν γί

Go to Context


Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Fragmenta varia (0086: 051)
“Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta”, Ed. Rose, V.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1886, Repr. 1967.
Category 7, treatise title 39, fragment 285, line 31

οἱ μυκτῆρες τοῦ σκορόδου, <γόνιμός ἐστιν>, εἰ δὲ μή, ἄγο-
νός ἐστιν. χρῶνται δὲ καὶ ἄλλαις δοκιμασίαις.
5. ib. p. 28, 12 (ad Ar. p. 746b 20 – 33): ἐνίαις μὲν
οὖν καὶ γινομένων τῶν καταμηνίων <ἀτεκνία> παρακολουθεῖ.
συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας γίνεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ
ἐὰν ᾖ εὐνουχώδης καὶ μικρὸν τὸν τράχηλον ἔχουσα, οὐ συλ-
λήψεται, καὶ ἐὰν ἢ ἐγκεκλεισμένας ἢ κωφὰς καὶ μὴ ἐστο-
μωμένας τὰς ὑστέρας ἔχῃ, κἂν λίαν κάθυγρος ᾖ, συνεξυ-
γραίνει γὰρ τὸ τοῦ ἄρρενος σπέρμα, κἂν λίαν πάλιν κατάξηρος,
ἀναληφθήσεται γὰρ καὶ ἀναξηρανθήσεται, ἐὰν μὴ κατα-
βαίνῃ τὸ ἴδιον μέτρον. καὶ ἄλλαι δὲ πολλαὶ πηρώσεις ἀγο

Go to Context

2

Does the construction have to include γὰρ? Or is it simply a conjunction to the previous sentence?
I couldn’t find an example with γὰρ in the relevant sections in Smyth (2369 ff.).

He referenced Sophocles’ Antigone 229, where καὶ simply means and:

The καί of καὶ εἰ may mean simply and, as κει’ τάδ’ εἴσεται Κρέων and if Creon learns this S. Ant. 229.

κεἰ τάδ᾽ εἴσεται Κρέων
ἄλλου παρ᾽ ἀνδρός; πῶς σὺ δῆτ᾽ οὐκ ἀλγύνει;

“If Creon learns it from another,
must you not suffer for it?”

  • Sir Richard Jebb (1891)
3

Nate,



No the concessive construction doesn’t require γὰρ. If γὰρ is absent then καὶ may function as a conjunction as in the sample you cite from Antigone 229. But when see καὶ γὰρ …, καὶ is never a conjunction according to Iver Larsen (SIL, East Africa/Denmark) who suggests we read καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν in 1Cor. 14:8a as if γὰρ was not there and that καὶ before γὰρ is always an adverb.

1Cor. 14:7 ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα, εἴτε αὐλὸς εἴτε κιθάρα, ἐὰν διαστολὴν τοῖς φθόγγοις μὴ δῷ, πῶς γνωσθήσεται τὸ αὐλούμενον ἢ τὸ κιθαριζόμενον; 8 καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν ἄδηλον σάλπιγξ φωνὴν δῷ, τίς παρασκευάσεται εἰς πόλεμον;

here is a direct quote of Larsen in co-text:

Ronaldo Ghenov wrote:

I’m pondering 1 Corinthians 14:8’s καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν.
I’m wondering if
καὶ = continuative + γὰρ = clarification + ἐὰν = introducing another protasis to be reflected upon
is unnecessarily isolating each conjunction and overlooking the idiomatic?

Iver Larsen wrote:

No, I think it is helpful to look at each of these individually. ἐὰν is a conjunction that links the conditional clause it introduces to the following main clause. I would not call γὰρ a conjunction, but a discourse particle. It functions above the sentence level. It means that the sentence it is part of gives further explanation to or support for the previous sentence or a word or phrase in the previous sentence. καὶ is not here a coordinating conjunction nor is it continuative. It gives emphasis to the following word or statement (but jumps over the γὰρ as if it had not been there). It is an adverb that emphasizes what follows the γὰρ and may be translated as “indeed, surely, also, even” depending on context. Here I would probably use indeed or surely. καὶ is always an intensifying adverb when it precedes γὰρ.

Iver’s comments are helpful but it seems like someone else should be discussing this somewhere.

Anyway, what I am trying to figure out is: What difference does γὰρ make in καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν? None of the grammars or commentaries I looked at addressed it. Robertson-Plummer (ICC) in a minimalist note suggests “even” as the possible gloss for καὶ in καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν. That’s the total I was abel to uncover in regard to this. You read the translations and you get the picture that concessive is ruled out for some reason since no one translates it that way. The context doesn’t support a concessive understanding. But the same three words are translated as concessive in samples from E.Med Kovacs[1]. The reason I am addressing this here rather than there is b-greek doesn’t major in classical syntax. There are classical scholars there but the focus is Koine. I am looking at Attic Tragedy and wondering if καὶ γὰρ εἰ E.Med is something on the same order with καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν in 1Cor 14:8. I understand the difference between εἰ and ἐὰν, that’s not issue.

[1]

E.Med 463-464
καὶ γὰρ εἰ σύ με στυγεῖς, οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην σοὶ κακῶς φρονεῖν ποτε.

Even if you hate me,
I could never bear you ill-will.
—David Kovacs

E.Med 1249-1250
καὶ γὰρ εἰ κτενεῖς σφ᾽, ὅμως
φίλοι γ᾽ ἔφυσαν:

for even if you kill them,
they were dear to you.
—David Kovacs

Perhaps Iver has answered the question. γὰρ signals that καὶ is an adverb which modifies something after γὰρ, a single word or a larger constituent.

4

What does καὶ + γὰρ mean as a single constituent?
you quote Ronaldo Ghenov post on b-greek.

καὶ = continuative + γὰρ = clarification

What does he mean by clarification? And do we have references in grammar books for this
kind of meaning?

5

Nate,

That’s part of Ronaldo’s post which I didn’t totally understand. I suspect by clarification he means that γὰρ introduces supportive material, in discourse terminology it would be called background. The grammars use their own metalanguage. Iver’s comment sums it up well

Iver Larsen wrote:

I would not call γὰρ a conjunction, but a discourse particle … It means that the sentence it is part of gives further explanation to or support for the previous sentence or a word or phrase in the previous sentence.

6

Here’s what Smyth has to say about καὶ γάρ:

  1. καὶ γάρ has in general two distinct meanings according as γάρ is an adverb or a conjunction.
    As καὶ γάρ has become a formula, it is often uncertain which of the two words is the adverb,
    which the conjunction.

  2. (I) καὶ γάρ and in fact, and indeed, καί being a conjunction, and γάρ an adverb.
    Here the clause in which καὶ γάρ stands is added as a new and important thought; where
    γάρ alone would state the reason or the explanation with less independence and with
    slighter emphasis. The negative is οὐδὲ γάρ. Thus Κῦρος δ᾽ ὁρῶν τοὺς Ἕλληνας νι_κῶντας
    τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτοὺς . . . ἐπεμελεῖτο ὅ τι ποιήσει βασιλεύς. καὶ γὰρ ᾔδει αὐτὸν ὅτι μέσον ἔχοι τοῦ
    Περσικοῦ στρατεύματος on seeing the Greeks victorious over the troops opposed to them,
    Cyrus watched to see what the king would do; and in fact he knew that he commanded the
    centre of the Persian force X. A. 1.8.21 (cp. 1. 1. 6, 2. 5. 5, 2. 6. 2). So often in affirmative
    responses: ἢ οὐκ ἀγαπήσεις τούτων τυγχάνων; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ἂν ἀγαπῴην. καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ, ἔφη
    or will you not be content if you obtain this? For my part I shall be. And so shall I, he said P. R. 473b.

a. καὶ γὰρ καί and even is καὶ γάρ and in fact reënforced by καί. Thus, καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἄδεια
ἐφαίνετο αὐτοῖς and in fact it looked to them as if there was perfect safety in so doing
T. 4.108. The negative is οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ (2938).

  1. (II) καὶ γάρ for even, for also. Here καί is an adverb affecting a single word, several
    words, or the whole sentence, and γάρ is a conjunction. The negative is οὐδὲ γάρ. Thus,
    ““καὶ γὰρ οὗτοι” for these too” P. A. 22c, ““καὶ γὰρ ἠδικημένοι σι_γησόμεσθα” for even
    wronged as I am I’ll keep silent” E. Med. 314, καὶ γὰρ μόνος ἡγοῖτ᾽ ἂν δύνασθαι πείθειν for,
    though quite unaided, he would think that he was able to persuade X. M. 1.2.11.

a. καὶ γὰρ . . . καί for both . . . and: here καί is correlated with a second καί; as ““καὶ
γὰρ ὑγιαίνουσιν οἱ τὰ σώματα εὖ ἔχοντες καὶ ἰσχύ_ουσι” for those who keep their bodies
in good condition are both healthy and strong” X. M. 3.12.4.

If καὶ γάρ in 1Cor. 14:8 is meant to be taken as a single constituent, then
the first meaning would be the probable choice here:
“and indeed, if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?”

If γάρ is mere conjunction, a less probable option, καὶ ἐάν is the single constituent
but it does not hold any concessive meaning, because the apodosis flows logically from the
protasis, which has no adversative/concessive meaning. You would have to leave γάρ
untranslated though, because it sounds awkward.
“and if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?”

7

Nate,

I agree. The co-text doesn’t support a concessive reading. I am a little reluctant to accept infalible rules, like: In Koine, καὶ before γάρ is always an adverb. Would like to see a few counter examples.

Iver Larsen wrote:
καὶ is always an intensifying adverb when it precedes γὰρ.

8

Ellicott:

‘> For if the trumpet also give an uncertain voice> ;’ the γὰρ confirming by the mention of a yet further example, and the καὶ, with a slightly > descensive > force (see notes on Phil. 4:12) marking that example as a still stronger one, the σάλπιγξ not having, like the αὐλὸς or the κίθάρα, a regular succession of musical intervals.’

Also, in his notes on Philippians 2:27 Ellicott says that there is ‘no inner and mutually modifying connection between the two particles’ - whereas there is with καὶ δέ - and that ‘their constant association is really due to the early position which γὰρ regularly assumes in the sentence’. They are fulfilling two different roles, and just happen to be place side by side, is the general idea..

Andrew

9

Yes clearly kai is not concessive here, goes with the gar, not with the “if.” In different context (e.g. the Eurip. exx.) it would leapfrog the gar and go with the “if” to mean “even if.” Smyth rightly (regardless of preferred grammatical/linguistic terminology) distinguishes the two functions of kai gar. This falls under his #1, “for even if” under his #2. Context determines which.