Paul Danove, «Distinguishing Goal and Locative Complements of New Testament Verbs of Transference.» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 20 (2007) 51-66 page 53

Vol 20 (2007)

Paul Danove, «Distinguishing Goal and Locative Complements of New Testament Verbs of Transference.», Vol. 20 (2007) 51-66

This study develops a rigorous method for distinguishing the Goal or Locative function of dative case noun phrase and ei0j and pro/j prepositional phrase required complements of NT verbs that designate transference. The discussion examines the manner in which Greek verbs grammaticalize the event of transference and proposes a semantic feature, ±animate, which specifies whether the entity designated by the complement is or is not attributed with the characteristics of a living being. An investigation of all occurrences of the dative case, ei0j, and pro/j required verbal complements then permits a distinction in their function as either Goal or Locative based on their animacy. The study concludes with an investigation of the constraints that these verbs place on the interpretation of their required complements.

See more by the same author

Page 53/66
‹
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
›

53 Distinguishing Goal and Locative Complements of New Testament... difficulty because Greek grammar permits the omission of the Theme complement in two contexts. First, the Theme complement may be omit- ted or left null whenever the previous or immediately following context specifies its definite content4: Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give [it] to you (Mark 6,22) Î±á¼´Ï„Î·Ïƒá½¹Î½ Î¼Îµ á½ƒ á¼á½°Î½ Î¸á½³Î»á¿ƒÏ‚, ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î´á½½ÏƒÏ‰ ÏƒÎ¿Î¹. Second, Theme complements may be null even when the context does not specify its definite content5. On such occasions, the verbs supply for the Theme the indefinite but circumscribed interpretation, â€œwhatever may be transferred in the manner designated by the verbâ€: So send [a messenger / a message] to Joppa and summon Simon (Acts 10,32). Ï€á½³Î¼ÏˆÎ¿Î½ Î¿á½–Î½ Îµá¼°Ï‚ á¼¸á½¹Ï€Ï€Î·Î½ ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î¼ÎµÏ„Î±Îºá½±Î»ÎµÏƒÎ±Î¹ Î£á½·Î¼Ï‰Î½Î±. The fact that Greek and English place differing constraints on verbs that designate transference also has implications for interpretation of the Greek text and its translation into grammatical English. Greek verbs that designate transference to a Goal freely admit to the designation of transference terminating in a Locative; whereas most English verbs that designate transference to a Goal do not accommodate the expression of transference terminating in a Locative. This is apparent in the following examples of occurrences of Î´á½·Î´Ï‰Î¼Î¹, which can designate both transfer- ence to a Goal and terminating in a Locative, and of give, which can designate transference to a Goal but cannot (*) designate transference terminating in a Locative: Goal Who gave this authority to you? (Matt 21,23) Ï„á½·Ï‚ ÏƒÎ¿Î¹ á¼”Î´Ï‰ÎºÎµÎ½ Ï„á½´Î½ á¼Î¾Î¿Ï…Ïƒá½·Î±Î½ Ï„Î±á½»Ï„Î·Î½; Discussions of definite null complements appear in A. Mittwoch, â€œIdioms and Un- 4 specified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletionâ€, Linguistic Inquiry 2 (1971) 255-9, P. Matthews, Syntax (Cambridge 1981) 125-6, and D.J. Alletron, Valency and the English Verb (New York 1982) 34, 68-70. Although these verbs also permit their Goal or Locative required complements to be null when definite, such occurrences are omitted in this study, which is concerned with the lexical realization of these complements. Discussions of indefinite null complements appear in B. Fraser and J. R. Ross, â€œIdioms 5 and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletionâ€, Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970) 264-5, and I. Sag and J. Hankamer, â€œToward a Theory of Anaphoric Processingâ€, Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984) 325-45.