Sekundärliteratur:Grammatik: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Aus Die Offene Bibel

Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche
Zeile 58: Zeile 58:
* Cohen, Jeffrey (1991): [ These are the Generations of Isaac].
: (zur Textsorte „Sidra“)
* Sheridan, Ruth (2010): [ John´s Gospel and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 13-17) as a Test Case].
* Sheridan, Ruth (2010): [ John´s Gospel and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 13-17) as a Test Case].

Version vom 12. September 2012, 11:50 Uhr

Grammatik allgemein

  • Knechtges, Martin (1999): Gebrauchte Namen. [= Linguistische Dissertation zum Thema „Eigennamen“.]
  • Schwaika, Oksana (2002): Wortfeldkonzeptionen: Darstellung und Kritik am Beispiel deutscher Verben der Geldbeziehungen. [Dissertation, enthält eine recht ausführliche Darstellung der Wortfeldtheorie.]


Grammatik Hebräisch






(zur Textsorte „Sidra“)


Grammatik Griechisch

Abstract: Participles in the Greek NT have a great variety of meanings or functions. One important meaning is to express a circumstance: the aorist tense expressing a circumstance prior to the action of the leading verb; the present tense, a circumstance concurrent to or occasionally subsequent to that of the leading verb. Unfortunately, various grammars fail to distinguish the circumstantial function from other functions. English versions of the NT likewise often render participles incorrectly. The present article seeks to clarify these distinctions and to enable the reader of the Greek NT to determine the function of the participles he encounters.
Abstract: This article proposes a cline of Greek imperativals, that is, a progressive ordering of Greek imperativals from a totally unmitigated command to a highly mitigated exhortation. It grows from a study of 1 Cor. 10:6–10. In this passage, the Apostle Paul shifts from a first person form of the verbal construction to a second person form, then to two first person forms, and finally back to a second person form. I did not find the explanations in the commentaries for these usages to be satisfactory. I accordingly propose that the use of the different persons is to be seen as part of an increase in marked prominence.
Along with the change in persons in the imperatival forms, there is a change in the imperativals themselves, going from a purpose clause to the imperative ?i´?es?e ‘be’ used with a substantive, to two uses of the hortatory subjunctive, followed by a second person imperative form of the verb. This, along with an increase in marked prominence in this passage, suggests a cline of mitigation for Greek imperativals. In the passage in 1 Corinthians, the imperativals proceed up the cline from a highly mitigated exhortation to a totally unmitigated command.
I followed material written by Neva Miller on imperativals in Romans 12, work done by Robert Longacre on 1 John, on Biblical Hebrew and on discourse in general, and work done by Ernst Wendland on 1 Peter. This article also examines an increase in marked prominence in the text in 1 Corinthians, and uses this to support the thesis of a perceived decrease in mitigation in the imperatival forms.
Included in this article in particular is the proposal that the imperative of ?i´??µa? ‘be’ plus a substantive occupies a place in a cline of imperativals below (more mitigated than) hortatory subjunctives. It also proposes that the switch from a first person form to a second person form, back to first person forms, and then to a second person form, is to be understood as a part of an increase in marked prominence. Thus, all of the imperativals in this passage can be perceived as exhortations directed to the Corinthians.
Abstract: In Greek as well as in many languages, the verb agrees with its subject in number and in person. Such an agreement is reflected morphologically on the verb through suffixation. If the subject is a compound noun phrase, that is, NP + NP, the general tendency for Greek verbs is to agree with the NP closest to them. However, agreement can also be controlled by the logical subject, or the grammatical subject, or both. The present article argues that the failure to clearly identify the controller of agreement in Greek has led to translations that are exegetically and theologically questionable. This point is proven by the analysis of three key texts from the Greek New Testament and their translation into English, French, Spanish, and a number of African languages. The passages studied in this article are Galatians 1:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:16–17 and Colossians 2:1–2.