Jump to content

Rom 1:7 modelling of the adjunct θεου


Λύχνις Δαν
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi ya,

 

  Acc 12.3.3.

  Mac 10.12

 

  I'm looking at the syntax chart below:

 

post-32023-0-77951500-1553049523_thumb.jpg

 

  It is unclear from this what θεου is adjunct to. I expect it to be adjunct to ἀγαπητοῖς.

 

  Is this a bug or something that would benefit from a small enhancement ?

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi ya,

 

  Acc 12.3.3.

  Mac 10.12

 

  I'm looking at the syntax chart below:

 

attachicon.gifsc.jpg

 

  It is unclear from this what θεου is adjunct to. I expect it to be adjunct to ἀγαπητοῖς.

 

  Is this a bug or something that would benefit from a small enhancement ?

 

Thx

D

All of θεοῦ κλητοῖς ἁγίοις is under ἀγαπητοῖς. If you expand the window you can see the depth of the tree a bit better. Is that what you're asking?

post-29320-0-25784600-1554489036_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Anthony,

 

  Not exactly but .....

 

  UIsing ASCII art then, I think this is what the chart is trying to say :

 

   C ------------------------------- ἀγαπητοῖς

       |   |

       |   --- A ------------------- θεοῦ

       |

       |            --- A ---------- κλητοῖς

       |            |

       --- X ----------------------- ἁγίοις

 

  but it's a little unclear in the Accordance rendering because the intended location of θεοῦ is not clearly shown.

 

  I don't think it's commonly thought to be the case, but by way of alternative example, if θεοῦ were considered adjunct to κλητοῖς , say as agency of some kind, then I would expect a different charting, of course.

 

  I also don't think of the appositive (X) as under ἀγαπητοῖς though it is dependent upon it. However, it could be a complement in its own right were ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ not present. Or perhaps if we thought that the two datives were asyndetically joined as a list then we'd have two complements rather than one complement and its appositive. Of course, that would imply we were talking about two distinct groups rather than one described in two ways..

 

It was stuff like that that was going through my head as I looked at the diagram trying to figure out where it came down.

 

Thx

D

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...