Jump to content

Romans 8:10 some questions


Λύχνις Δαν
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi ya,

 

  In following up on http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/17325-im-still-trying-to-learn-the-ropes-here/I started trying to really pull this apart and there are a number of things that strike me.

 

  Here is the passage from the NA28 Greek NT :

 

Ῥωμαίους 8·10 εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην.

 

   And here it is from NASB 95 for comparison :

 

Rom. 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

 

  And here is the syntax chart for the Greek :

 

post-32023-0-52077600-1448428357_thumb.jpg

 

  And here are the questions :

 

1. There are six N in this chart. The top level sentence one and 5 subordinates. Consider the first 3 subordinate N's. They are linked together by a curved line - feel free to leap in with helpful terminology at any point. When I mouse over either of the top two N's the corresponding text for each of them highlights in the text pane, that being εἰ ... Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, τὸ. Mousing over the third though highlights both those and the third chunk : εἰ ... Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, τὸ ... σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν.

 

  Now if the link line means that these are all part of the same N why does the mouseover over each of the N's behave the same way ?

 

2. The same thing happens with the three P's below these three N's. I assume the reason is the same but just in case not, I'll add it as a separate point.

 

3. It is not entirely clear to me what the adjunct (A) εἰ ... Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν is adjunct to. It would appear that it is adjunct to the P predicate mentioned in 2 above. This would then be the null predicate under the third P which I would assume an ειμι form for. This seems odd to me given how the sentence is translated above and how I would normally read it. I'm happy to accept that the phrase is an adjunct, that is not required grammatically by the following clauses, but am puzzled by the relationship to the verb.

 

4. Also regarding this adjunct, is it correct to say that this is an adjunct phrase containing a predicate clause (though that might be strictly redundant) ? That is that the ει begins the adjunct phrase and that the predicate clause proper is restricted to the Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν.

 

5. Finally these two chunks (a sufficiently unlinguistic term as to avoid confusion I hope to describe a sequence of words) :

 

τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν

τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην

 

  are very similar structurally, actually to my eye they appear identical. I am puzzled why they are not modelled in exactly the same way in the syntax. The first is linked to the N and P of the protasis, while the second is not, which the more I think about it the more I don't really understand it. But each internally, if you like, has the syntax in the tree.

 

Thx

D

Edited by Daniel Semler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to #1 and 2, I believe, is there is a tagging error. Marco stated that he believes there to be a tagging error here. So, that would be my guess pertaining to that question.

 

#3 - τὸ...σῶμα is the main subject according to the way he as his marked and there is a implied εἰμί (marked as a null) and that whole phrase that is functioning as the predicate (it isn't marked as an adjunct). εἰ...Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν is modifying the main predicate.

 

#4 - it seems that it would be a phrase becausing there isn't a L (dependant clause following it).

 

#5 - From how I'm looking at the syntax module, Marco marked them almost identically as you say it seem they should be.

 

Fun observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,
 
I think we are now all on the same page, and that we will understand each other. So, let's go forward and hope for the best.
 

Here is the passage from the NA28 Greek NT :
 

Ῥωμαίους 8·10 εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην.

 
   And here it is from NASB 95 for comparison :
 

Rom. 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

 
  And here is the syntax chart for the Greek :
 
http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gifsyntax.jpg
 
  And here are the questions :
 
1. There are six N in this chart. The top level sentence one and 5 subordinates. Consider the first 3 subordinate N's. They are linked together by a curved line - feel free to leap in with helpful terminology at any point. When I mouse over either of the top two N's the corresponding text for each of them highlights in the text pane, that being εἰ ... Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, τὸ. Mousing over the third though highlights both those and the third chunk : εἰ ... Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, τὸ ... σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν.

  
The N mark stands for an independent clause. The subordinate clauses are always marked L, never N.

So, we have one top level sentence, that consists of several coordinate clauses. That is, the sentence consists of at least two coordinate independent clauses, whose relationship is governed by μὲν and δὲ.

 

The arching lines have different meaning depending on whether the crown leans to the left or to the right.

 

In the overarching curve to the left of the pane the crown of the arch is to the left, and the apex of the arch is a letter (here, N). This kind of arch marks the normal relationships between elements.

 

Then there are arches whose crown leans to the right. They have no letter at the apex. The letters are at the springing points of the arch. This kind of arch marks split elements (split N, split L, split P, etc.). So we actually have only two independent clauses. The first is split in three and the second is split in two parts.

 

We have split elements whenever an in interposed element is found. Such are δέγάρ, etc.

 

Now if the link line means that these are all part of the same N why does the mouseover over each of the N's behave the same way ?

 

The mouseover says just what the meaning of the letter is, whether it is N, L, S, P, C, A, etc.

2. The same thing happens with the three P's below these three N's. I assume the reason is the same but just in case not, I'll add it as a separate point.

 
 See above.
 

3. It is not entirely clear to me what the adjunct (A) εἰ ... Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν is adjunct to. It would appear that it is adjunct to the P predicate mentioned in 2 above. This would then be the null predicate under the third P which I would assume an ειμι form for. This seems odd to me given how the sentence is translated above and how I would normally read it. I'm happy to accept that the phrase is an adjunct, that is not required grammatically by the following clauses, but am puzzled by the relationship to the verb.

 

Your interpretation of the symbols is correct. We already said that there are 2 independent clauses. I take the subordinate clause εἰ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν as an Adjunct Clause that determines the null predicate of the first independent clause, that is of τὸ μὲν σῶμα [ἐστι] νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν. The null Predicate is ἐστι. The Adjunct Clause is a conditional clause, which is a subset of Circumstantial clauses.

 

4. Also regarding this adjunct, is it correct to say that this is an adjunct phrase containing a predicate clause (though that might be strictly redundant) ?

 

As you see it, it would be an adjunct phrase containing a clause. Predicate clause would be both redundant and confusing.

 

An adjunct phrase containing a clause would make an adjunct clause. In other words, this is what an adjunct clause is. Now, it is disputable whether the subordinating conjunction should stand out of the Clause boundary or inside it. When I started the tagging, it stayed outside. Then, for various reasons, I tried to move them all inside. Here and in the following verse I failed to move the conjunction.

 

A very good reason why the conjunctions are now inside the clause is that this allows for a search of a kind of syntactical element (that is, an Adjunct Clause, or a Complement Clause, etc) that starts with a certain subordinating conjunction.

 

The original search was much more complicated, as the conjunction was an Adjunct to an enclosing Predicate Phrase.
 

That is that the ει begins the adjunct phrase and that the predicate clause proper is restricted to the Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν.

 

The tree representation that you are looking at says that, except that L is not called a predicate clause (see above), but just a subordinate clause. This was a problem with the former system, because it failed to note that this subordinate clause is an Adjunct Clause. So a search wouldn't find it.

What you find here is a remain of the forme system, because I failed to move the conjunction inside the adjunct clause.

 

5. Finally these two chunks (a sufficiently unlinguistic term as to avoid confusion I hope to describe a sequence of words) :
 

τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν

τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην

 
  are very similar structurally, actually to my eye they appear identical. I am puzzled why they are not modelled in exactly the same way in the syntax. The first is linked to the N and P of the protasis, while the second is not, which the more I think about it the more I don't really understand it. But each internally, if you like, has the syntax in the tree.

 

There is no way to have the same subordinate clause belong to two different independent clauses. If you will, you may think of the conditional subordinate clause as an understood adjunct clause that may be added to the Predicate of the second independent clause: [εἰ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν], τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα [ἐστι] ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην. It would then be part of the Predicate Phrase of the second independent clause, that would then consist of the understood adjunct clause, the predicate itself ([ἐστι]), its complement ζωὴ and its adjunct διὰ δικαιοσύνην.

 

However, language allows us not to repeat everything, when it can be understood. If what is understood is a necessary constituent, then you will find a null (and everybody will ask me why that null is there ;) ). If it is and Adjunct, which by definition can be left out, I won't mark it.

Edited by Marco V. Fabbri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Marco,

 

  Thanx for this.

 

The N mark stands for an independent clause. The subordinate clauses are always marked L, never N.

So, we have one top level sentence, that consists of several coordinate clauses. That is, the sentence consists of at least two coordinate independent clauses, whose relationship is governed by μὲν and δὲ.

 

 

  Thanx for "coordinate independent clause" I was using "subordinate" in confusing way here - ooops.

 

  The information on arc direction is helpful.

 

The mouseover says just what the meaning of the letter is, whether it is N, L, S, P, C, A, etc.

 

 

  Regarding mouseover (in my 1 and 2), I was referring to the cross-highlighting between the syntax chart and the Greek text. Based on the one change to include ει in the adjunct clause, I don't think the N and P structures in the first coordinate clause will change. So I suspect we have a cross-highlighting bug because not all three sections of the text are highlighted which I think was the intended behaviour. Do you agree or is there some reason the cross-highlighting should be asymmetrical ? I can open a separate topic on this as a bug and see what the response is - if this is a bug it would appear to be a tool issue not a syntax module issue.
 

There is no way to have the same subordinate clause belong to two different independent clauses. If you will, you may think of the conditional subordinate clause as an understood adjunct clause that may be added to the Predicate of the second independent clause: [εἰ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν], τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα [ἐστι] ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην. It would then be part of the Predicate Phrase of the second independent clause, that would then consist of the understood adjunct clause, the predicate itself ([ἐστι]), its complement ζωὴ and its adjunct διὰ δικαιοσύνην.

 

 

 

  Ok, that seems to create an asymmetry in the representation in the syntax, where the relations between the clauses in the text is more symmetrical. I think I've noticed similar things elsewhere with compounds. I'll have to look again at those. Of course, I am possibly creating confusion by adding in things that don't properly belong to pure syntax syntactical representation. I am trying to build up a better understanding of linguistics and syntax but it will take some time.

 

  Thanx for all this. Very helpful.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bug that prevented us to find Romans 8:10 is now fixed, and Accordance 11.1.2 will find the conditional subordinate clause.

It now looks as follows:

post-76-0-21855400-1449131971_thumb.png

Edited by Marco V. Fabbri
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...