Greek emphatic pronouns
Climacus
Shipmate
in Kerygmania
The commentary I am reading on St Mark's Gospel has been noting various pronouns are emphatic. I took that to mean they were emphasised somehow.
After reaching the Garden and the "not what I will" where this was stated again I realised I don't know what it means for a pronoun to be emphasised. A quick search told me it is to do with contrast or focus, but how does that differ from an English pronoun? For example, the "I" above indicates it's Christ. Not someone else there. So I'm confused as to what the Greek one does. Is it just really emphasising? a literary device? something else?
Thanks for bearing with my ignorance or dimness...or both.
After reaching the Garden and the "not what I will" where this was stated again I realised I don't know what it means for a pronoun to be emphasised. A quick search told me it is to do with contrast or focus, but how does that differ from an English pronoun? For example, the "I" above indicates it's Christ. Not someone else there. So I'm confused as to what the Greek one does. Is it just really emphasising? a literary device? something else?
Thanks for bearing with my ignorance or dimness...or both.
Comments
Yes, it's the same in Kiswahili. As is the use of emphatic pronouns- too often and you sound almost self-obsessed!
I was very grateful for my grounding in classical languages when we tackled language learning in Kenya.
Kind of a tangent here. I had a very good friend from Kenya when I was in Seminary. In fact, he was my best man at my wedding. Sammi went on to teach psychology at the University of Nyrobi. Have lost contact with him many years ago.
End of Tangent.
Yes. Or “I , even I, alone escaped to tell you.” But Greek can do it just by adding the pronoun when the sentence already makes perfect sense without it.
Interestingly myself was what was added to the text (shown in italics) in such instances.
Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and informing me. I myself, even I,
I wonder what the English equivalent is.
Possibly something with tenses, in fact there I think we've got more than Hebrew (or Greek?).
The version I have keeps Mark's tenses as-is (I heard someone once say Mark's Greek was not very polished). So where the NKJV has, for example, "they clothed him with purple" the translation with this commentary reads "they clothe him with purple".
All of which is to say I am thankful for translators and don't envy their decision-making.
Another curiosity about English verbs is the way that English has largely replaced the subjunctive with a number of auxiliaries, 'may', 'must', 'could' etc and then expanded them. I think the technical term is 'periphrastic tenses'.
I believe, Hebrew tenses and moods do not work in the same way as tenses and moods in Indo-European languages..
Thank you. I've read the first part so far and it was very interesting for the distinctive parts to be highlighted.
Indeed. The author of this commentary did his own translation and stated it was purposely literal and not a beautiful translation to be read in church. Seeing the historical present and some word choices I was not used to (Jesus "expired" on the Cross, for example) caught my attention.
Of note Mark uses the historical present some 150 times.
Matthew, I think, uses it about 78 times.
Luke only 8 times.
I have also wondered whether there has been intentional ambiguity that literal translation approaches tend to remove.
My personal view of Mark is that he intends the audience to identify themselves as being the subjects of the pericopes. So the audience should not think e.g. that the first disciples were slow to understand, but that is not our current failing; rather it is the nature of discipleship that understanding takes time. (The story about Jesus having to take two tries to open the eyes of the blind person is what happens for all disciples.)
Your information about Mark's use of the historical present sounds as though it could support this.
je travaille = I work
moi,je travaille = I am the one who is doing the work/It is I who am working
tu ne travailles pas = you are not working
toi,tu ne travailles pas - as for you,you are not working
The other forms are
lui,il ne travaille pas
elle,elle travaille
nous, nous voyons le monsieur
vous, vous écoutez la radio
eux, ils jouent au football
elles,elles tricotent
In English the words 'myself' etc are often used a emphatic pronouns although these pronouns may be used principally as reflexive pronouns
there is a difference in the following two sentences
1. He cuts himself with a knife. (He is both the subject and the direct object of the verb)
2. He ,himself, cut the birthday cake .(himself is an emphatic pronoun emphasising that he was the person who cut the cake and NOT telling us that he did it alone to himself)
It's much wider than Lancashire, at least in the form with the emphatic pronoun at the end. I've heard it from Mansfield to Morecambe, me.
The I am in John 8:58 looks like another emphatic pronoun? (Before Abraham was* I am) and also the good shepherd.
* I'd also half assumed 'Abraham was' and 'I am' were parallel phrasings. But it looks like the 'was' is implicit in the inflection, and the base verb is the one translated begot in genealogies.