Paul Danove, «A Comparison Of The Usage Of Akouw And Akouw- Compounds In The Septuagint And New Testament», Vol. 14 (2001) 65-86
This study characterizes all occurrences of
a0kou/w and seven related verbs (a0ntakou/w,
diakou/w, ei0sakou/w,
e0nakou/w, e0pakou/w,
parakou/w, and u9pakou/w)
in the Septuagint and New Testament according to their semantic and
syntactic properties, develops a single set of rules to describe the
distribution of noun phrase objects of these verbs, and then compares the
patterns of usage of these verbs in the Septuagint and New Testament. A
preliminary discussion identifies the semantic and syntactic properties
necessary to describe all biblical occurrences of
a0kou/w and proposes a set of descriptive rules that govern the
syntactic case of its noun phrase objects. Further investigation then
indicates that this same set of rules with only one minor modification
also is adequate to describe the syntactic case of noun phrase objects of
the noted a0kou/w-compounds. The discussion
concludes by comparing the distribution of noun phrase objects in
particular syntactic cases within the Septuagint and New Testament.
A Comparison of the Usage of ajkouvw and ajkouvw-Compounds 79
sical rules describing the distribution of object noun phrases of the con-
tent construction that appeals to two semantic features, one concerning
the subject [± response] and the other concerning the object [± speaker],
and that recognizes that the requirements of the topic construction and
the attraction of the relative to the case of its antecedent take precedence
over other grammatical considerations:
Reformulated Rules 31:
Except for occasions of attraction of a relative object to the case of its
antecedent and assuming a hierarchy of rules, the noun phrase object of
a transitive occurrence of ajkouvw appears in
1. the accusative case if the object relates the topic of perception (indi-
rect perception);
2. the genitive case if the object is characterized by the feature, [+
speaker] (direct perception);
3. the accusative case if the object is characterized by the feature [– speak-
er] and the subject is characterized by the feature [– response] (direct per-
ception);
4. the genitive or accusative case if object is characterized by the feature
[– speaker] and the subject is characterized by the feature [+ response]
(direct perception).
This detailed study of the content construction of ajkouvw and the
semantic considerations that govern its noun phrase objects serve as the
background for the discussion of the noun phrase objects of ajkouvw-com-
pounds.
2. antakouw
j v
The verb, ajntakouvw, is a hapax legomenon and is exceedingly rare in
non-biblical literature. It requires two arguments, an experiencer and a
31
These rules address suggestions by Turner (Syntax, p. 234, Blass, Debrunner, Funk
(Greek Grammar, p. 95) and Smyth (Greek Grammar, p. 323) that occurrences of ajkouvw
with genitive objects in John have the meanings, «obey,» «heed,» and «listen to.» These
translations find support in Reformulated Rule #4 which states that occurrences of
akouw characterized by the features [+ response, – speaker] may have genitive case
jv
objects. However, since they also may have accusative case objects, the translations,
«obey,» «heed,» or «listen to,» may be appropriate for noun phrase objects of direct
perception, genitive or accusative, whose verb is characterized by the features [+ response,
– speaker]. Also, since occurrences of ajkouvw characterized by the feature [+ speaker]
need not register a response, the suggested translations are appropriate only for occurrences
characterized by the features [+ response, + speaker]. Finally, the translation, «hear,» is
always appropriate for direct perception ([± response, ± speaker]).