Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

1Co 10:12 mh.

pe,sh| — It seems to me that this clause could alternatively be


diagrammed as an object clause for blepe,tw.
1Co 10:16 to.n a;rton — It is odd to have an accusative-case noun diagrammed as
subject of a finite verb. However, Robertson (Word Pictures) takes this as an instance of
inverse attraction with the relative pronoun; that is, the antecedent is attracted to the case
of the relative rather than the more common vice-versa. What makes this instance
especially unusual, for the New Testament, at least, is that it crosses the boundary
between the nominative case and the oblique cases. Ordinarily attraction occurs among
the oblique cases (genitive, dative, and accusative), especially where an accusative-case
object is attracted to one of the other cases. Given the position of ouvci, within each of
the verse’s two clauses, it is attractive to consider a;rton (and the first clause’s
corresponding poth,rion) as a pendent construction. But even viewing the clauses so
does not resolve the question of why a;rton (and by analogy apparently poth,rion as
well) should be accusative rather than nominative. Apparently the puzzlement is only
mine, however. NA27 shows no textual variation at this point, so the scribes must have
thought the construction entirely natural.
1Co 10:12 mh. pe,sh| — It seems to me that this clause could alternatively be
diagrammed as an object clause for blepe,tw.
1Co 10:16 to.n a;rton — It is odd to have an accusative-case noun diagrammed as
subject of a finite verb. However, Robertson (Word Pictures) takes this as an instance of
inverse attraction with the relative pronoun; that is, the antecedent is attracted to the case
of the relative rather than the more common vice-versa. What makes this instance
especially unusual, for the New Testament, at least, is that it crosses the boundary
between the nominative case and the oblique cases. Ordinarily attraction occurs among
the oblique cases (genitive, dative, and accusative), especially where an accusative-case
object is attracted to one of the other cases. Given the position of ouvci, within each of
the verse’s two clauses, it is attractive to consider a;rton (and the first clause’s
corresponding poth,rion) as a pendent construction. But even viewing the clauses so
does not resolve the question of why a;rton (and by analogy apparently poth,rion as
well) should be accusative rather than nominative. Apparently the puzzlement is only
mine, however. NA27 shows no textual variation at this point, so the scribes must have
thought the construction entirely natural.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen