Paul Danove, «le&gw Melding In The Septuagint And New Testament», Vol. 16 (2003) 19-31
This study investigates the grammatical phenomenon, le&gw melding,
which arises in particular contexts in which two or three verbs of communication,
one of which usually is le&gw, govern the same object complement.
The study establishes the syntactic, semantic, and lexical requirements of
the verbs of communication that participate in le&gw melding, develops the
distinctive characteristics of this phenomenon, and considers its implications
for translation and the formulation of lexicon entries for the Greek
words of the Septuagint and New Testament.
«Distinguishing Goal and Locative Complements of New Testament Verbs of Transference.» 2007 51-66
«The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus as the Son of Man and Christ in Mark» 2003 16-34
«Verbs of Transference and Their Derivatives of Motion and State in the New Testament: a Study of Focus and Perspective.» 2006 53-71
«A Comparison Of The Usage Of
Akouw
And
Akouw- Compounds
In The Septuagint And New
Testament» 2001 65-86
20 Paul Danove
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Καιν Ποῦ ἐστιν Αβελ ὁ ἀδελφός σου; And God said to Cain,
“Where is Abel your brother?” (Gen 4:9)
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, Ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν... But I say to you, “Love your en-
emies...” (Matt 5:44)
ἄγγελος κυρίου εἶπεν τῷ Γαδ τοῦ εἰπεῖν πρὸς ∆αυιδ... A messenger of the Lord said
to Gad to say to David... (1 Chr 21:18)
καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν... And they said nothing to anyone... (Mark 16:8)
In the first two examples, the direct objects relate the exact content of
God’s and Jesus’ speech through quotes; whereas, in the latter two exam-
ples, the third complements (‘to say to David...’ and ‘nothing’) designate
the content of discourse. This usage of λέγω may be represented by the
following syntactic, semantic, and lexical description:
SYN. 1 (2) [3]*
* 1=subject, 2=indirect object, 3=object, ( )=indef. null com., [ ]=def. null com.
SEM. Agt Exp Con**
** Agt = agent, Exp = experiencer, Con = content
LEX. N N/P N/V***
*** N = noun phrase, V = verb phrase, P = prepositional phrase
This description characterizes the requirements of λέγω in the active
voice according to its syntactic (syn.), semantic (sem.), and lexical (lex.)
properties. The subject or first complement, 1, lexically realizes the agent
(Agt) either by a noun phrase (noun or pronoun, N) or by the verbal
ending. The indirect object or second complement, 2, lexically realizes
the experiencer (Exp) by a noun phrase (N) or a prepositional phrase (P).
The direct object or third complement, 3, lexically realizes the content
(Con) by a noun phrase (N) or by a clause or other verb phrase (V). The
parentheses, ( ), in the syntactic description indicate that the second com-
plement may be omitted (null) even when the preceding linguistic context
does not specify its semantic content. In such cases, the indirect object is
granted an indefinite interpretation, ‘someone’ or ‘whoever might hear’:4
Indefinite null complements receive development in Charles J. Fillmore, “Pragmatically
4
Controlled Zero Anaphora”, Berkeley Linguistics Society 12 (1986) 95-107, and are treated
in other linguistic approaches under the designations, “unspecified noun phrase deletion”
in Bruce Fraser and John R. Ross, “Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion”,
Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970) 264-5, and “pragmatically controlled model-interpretive null
anaphora” in Ivan Sag and Jorge Hankamer, “Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing,”
Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984) 325-45.
RSS