Papers by Herman C Du Toit
South African Journal of Linguistics, 1986
... As an example he gives the type of situation in (3) below: (3) Yesterday, department was in a... more ... As an example he gives the type of situation in (3) below: (3) Yesterday, department was in a total mess. Fido, who had escaped from the home of Dean Miller, was caught the ___ campus police in the office of the department ___ __ - -- -- ...
South African Journal of Linguistics, Oct 1, 1987
The status of stylistic rules within the framework of the Government and Binding theory (hence GB... more The status of stylistic rules within the framework of the Government and Binding theory (hence GB theory) is uncertain. Many unsolved problems still remain, for example, the inclusion of these rules in the core grammar, and their relative position in the total grammar. In this article certain characteristics of the relative construction are discussed within Chomsky's version of the GB-theory, as set out in his 1981-publication, 'Lectures on government and binding.’ There are several rules, for example, progressive and regressive assimilation, kernel-N incorporation and sentence-displacement, which are optional with the relative construction. The research on this seems to support the validity of referring to these rules as 'stylistic', and, secondly, the placement of these rules after the syntax, with the filtering component between the syntax and the stylistic component.
In this paper presuppositions of the source and receptor in the communicative event are discussed... more In this paper presuppositions of the source and receptor in the communicative event are discussed. The point of view taken is that presupposition less exegesis is impossible and that exegesis, like any act of understanding, is constantly modified by one's own framework of ideas, beliefs and so forth. Some kinds of presuppositions are discussed and examples are adduced to show how these can influence interpretation and have found their way into translations of the Bible. Finally, the role of the exegete in general and the translator in particular, with respect to presuppositions, is discussed.
South African Journal of Linguistics, 1987
Samevatting In hierdie artikel word aangetoon dat wh-skuif in Oud-Grieks en Latyn op 'n soort... more Samevatting In hierdie artikel word aangetoon dat wh-skuif in Oud-Grieks en Latyn op 'n soortgelyke wyse funksioneer as in Engels en baie ander moderne tale. Dieselfde bindingsknope geld, nl. S', S en NP en die “landing site” is ook in COMP. 'n Verskil is dat “Pied Piping” en “Preposition stranding” nie in die klassieke tale toegelaat word nie. 'n Kopierende reel in die marginale onderdeel van die qrammatika hanteer die enkele gevalle waar 'n kopie agtergelaat word tydens wh-skuif.
Neotestamentica, 2017
The distinction of “foreground versus background” in narrative discourse is fundamental, if not u... more The distinction of “foreground versus background” in narrative discourse is fundamental, if not universal, to the literatures of the world. In languages such as Greek, this distinction is indicated mainly by means of tense-aspect morphology. The purpose of this article is to explore the types of situations in which the imperfect indicative occurs in narrative discourse in the Gospel of John; that is, to investigate, describe and possibly explain its function in those situations. The research is restricted mainly to narrative proper, meaning the main storyline and offline information, and does not include direct, indirect and authorial discourse as such. The findings are that the imperfect is the primary, though not exclusive, tense-form used to provide background information for events (etc.) in the main storyline, which is carried by the aorist indicative and historical present. The function of backgrounding is related to the imperfect’s aspect and its characteristic linking with another verbal utterance, which also enables it to establish cohesion in a narrative. Background is provided in a number of ways, including setting the scene, giving background details, and indicating explanation, reason, reaction and result with regard to mainline events.
The distinction between foreground and background in narrative discourse is a pervasive phenomeno... more The distinction between foreground and background in narrative discourse is a pervasive phenomenon in the literatures of the world, and languages have a variety of devices to indicate this distinction. These include, amongst others, the use of specific tense-forms of the verb, morphosyntactic features, the distinction between events and non-events, lexical verb types (achievement, accomplishment, activity, state, etc.), voice, and word order. The use of the tense-forms of the verb to indicate foreground and background has been studied in depth in a variety of languages. In the last three decades there have been a number of studies on the Greek of the New Testament, following the upsurge of interest in the aspect and time characteristics of Greek in the early nineties of the previous century. This study focused on the function of the Greek imperfect and pluperfect indicative tense-forms (henceforth, imperfect and pluperfect) to indicate foreground and background in the Gospel of Lu...
HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 2015
The traditional view of the function of relative sentences in the Greek New Testament differed ma... more The traditional view of the function of relative sentences in the Greek New Testament differed markedly from that in many modern languages. This view was challenged in the mid-1980s and a number of striking correspondences with a variety of modern (and some classical) languages were pointed out, despite some differences. The purpose of this article is, amongst others, to explore functional aspects of the relative sentence against this background, and to provide further substantiation for the new view and some new perspectives in the light of recent literature. The conclusion is that the view of the functions of the relative sentence, as developed in the mid-1980s, still seems valid. The view is also supported to a large extent by recent literature, especially with respect to the relative sentence’s adjectival use, despite differences relating to nuances and terminology. However, recent New Testament grammars still distinguish so-called ‘conditional’, ‘concessive’, ‘causal’, ‘final’ ...
STELLENBOSCH PAPERS IN LINGUISTICS, 2016
In nominale relatiewe konstruksies in die Griekse Nuwe Testament met 'n overte (d.w.s. foneti... more In nominale relatiewe konstruksies in die Griekse Nuwe Testament met 'n overte (d.w.s. foneties-gerealiseerde) antesedent bestaan daar 'n verband tussen die antesedente en die tipe relatiewe bysin (beperkend of bystellend) wat daarmee saam groepeer. Groeperings kom ook voor waar 'n relatiewe bysin, na 'n overte antesedent, deur 'n asindetiese relatiewe bysin gevolg word. In die Griekse vakliteratuur bestaan daar egter weinig inligting oor die groeperings. Dit het egter uit die navorsing geblyk dat Lehmann (1984), wat steeds die standaardwerk oor relatiewe konstruksies in 'n groot verskeidenheid tale is en wyd in onlangse publikasies aangehaal word, 'n aantal belangrike insigte na vore bring wat moontlik op bogenoemde groeperings lig kan werp. Dit het ook geblyk dat die beskrywing van soortgelyke verskynsels in sommige moderne tale 'n bydrae in die verband kan lewer. Die doel van die navorsing wat hierdie artikel onderle, was om hierdie insigte sistema...
Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 2020
The distinction between foreground and background in narrative discourse is a pervasive phenomeno... more The distinction between foreground and background in narrative discourse is a pervasive phenomenon in the literatures of the world, and languages have a variety of devices to indicate this distinction. The use of the tense-forms of the verb for this purpose has been studied in a variety of languages, including the Greek of the New Testament. The aim of this study is to explore, describe, and classify the functions of the imperfect and pluperfect indicative in the Gospel of Luke's narrative discourse. The study is restricted to narrative proper (which includes embedded narratives, such as the parables of Jesus), but excludes direct and indirect discourse, and comments by the author of the Gospel. The findings are that the main function of the imperfect in the Gospel of Luke's narrative discourse is to provide background information. This is related to the imperfect's "imperfective" aspect and its characteristic linking to another verbal utterance, which also promotes cohesion in the text. The imperfect's main specific use is to provide background information in the form of setting the scene for events that follow in the main storyline. It is also used in the introduction of participants in a scene, to provide supplementary details, in epilogues, and in explanatory clauses. In a few instances, the imperfect expresses foreground information. The pluperfect is always used for background information. This is related to its characteristic of describing a continuing state in the past which is the result of an event in the past. The pluperfect's specific uses are to set the scene for mainline events that follow, together with the imperfect; to provide supplementary details about persons, events, etc. in the main storyline; and to explain the reason for events in the main storyline.
Neotestamentica, 2017
See under Full-text
HTS Theological Studies, 2015
The traditional view of the function of relative sentences in the Greek New Testament differed ma... more The traditional view of the function of relative sentences in the Greek New Testament differed markedly from that in many modern languages. This view was challenged in the mid-1980s and a number of striking correspondences with a variety of modern (and some classical) languages were pointed out, despite some differences. The purpose of this article is, amongst others, to explore functional aspects of the relative sentence against this background, and to provide further substantiation for the new view and some new perspectives in the light of recent literature. The conclusion is that the view of the functions of the relative sentence, as developed in the mid-1980s, still seems valid. The view is also supported to a large extent by recent literature, especially with respect to the relative sentence’s adjectival use, despite differences relating to nuances and terminology. However, recent New Testament grammars still distinguish so-called ‘conditional’, ‘concessive’, ‘causal’, ‘final’ and ‘resultative’ relative sentences as part of their adverbial use, despite strong evidence to the contrary. The conclusion reached is that relative sentences seem to have the following functions in New Testament Greek, which correspond to their functions in numerous modern languages: (1) Identifying a referent(s) with or without an overt nominal antecedent. (2) Providing background or additional information for a nominal or sentential antecedent in the form of a parenthesis, explanation or concession, or some combination of these. (3) Qualifying a verb with regard to time, location or manner. (4) Functioning as a conjoined sentence.
Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 2016
In the Greek New Testament, relative sentences that are introduced by relative pronouns alone, ap... more In the Greek New Testament, relative sentences that are introduced by relative pronouns alone, apart from the adverbial uses, are the most frequent subordinate sentence type. The research reported on in this paper aimed to investigate and describe a number of syntactic features of relative constructions in the Greek New Testament, taking account, among others, of some typological parameters that have been developed in the general linguistics literature for these constructions. The results indicate that relative constructions in the Greek New Testament have a variety of features, all of which have counterparts in some modern (or other ancient) languages, despite the differences. The relative sentence in the Greek New Testament is mostly postnominal, and the relative pronoun-type is used in those cases for encoding the role of the coreferential element in the relative sentence. Phrases expressing a variety of syntactic functions in a sentence (e.g. subject, direct object, etc.) are accessible to relativisation, that is, they can be represented by relative pronouns. Nominal elements serve mostly as antecedents of relative sentences, although sentences appear in that function as well. A variety of syntactic types of relative sentences can be distinguished, including the prenominal participial, postnominal finite/participial, circumnominal, free relative, adverbial, prejoined, postjoined, sentential and conjoined types. These can be linked in a systematic way to the four functions of relative sentences in the New Testament, i.e. identifying, appositive, adverbial and continuative. Relative sentences also play a role in communicative strategies. Prejoined relative sentences, for example, are most suitable for exposition and theme-building, especially in the correlative diptych construction.
LitNet Akademies, 2016
Groupings in nominal relative constructions in the Greek New Testament
Most relative constructio... more Groupings in nominal relative constructions in the Greek New Testament
Most relative constructions in the Greek New Testament consist of an overt nominal antecedent and a postnominal relative clause. Syntactically, relative constructions of this type are determiner-phrases, with the antecedent consisting typically of a head-noun, together with a combination of other elements, for example, articles, quantifiers, adjectives and prepositional phrases. The antecedent is followed directly by a restrictive or appositive relative clause which is embedded in the determiner-phrase.
Within such nominal relative constructions, there appears to be a relationship between the head nominal of the antecedent and the type of relative clause (restrictive or appositive) that typically groups together with it. There are possibly also examples of a related phenomenon in nominal relative constructions where more than one relative clause group together (technically, stack) after the same antecedent.
A scrutiny of the literature on the Greek New Testament indicated that there existed no in-depth discussion of these phenomena, except for some remarks in Du Toit (1984:188–99; 2014:23–5) and occasional references in New Testament grammars to passages where a high percentage of relative clauses occur, for example, 1 Cor. 15:1–2 and Rom. 9:4ff. (Robertson 1919:954).
However, research indicated that Lehmann (1984), which is still the standard publication on relative constructions in a variety of languages and widely quoted in recent publications, contains a number of important insights that could shed light on the above phenomena. In addition, some publications on modern languages offer useful information in this respect.
The objective of the research that underlay this paper was to apply these insights and information systematically to nominal relative constructions in the Greek New Testament and ascertain their usefulness in understanding and describing the above phenomena. The research focused only on nominal relative constructions with overt antecedents. Nominal relative constructions without antecedents (often referred to as free relatives) did not form part of the research.
The following are the main points made by Lehmann (1984:259–67) with regard to groupings in nominal relative constructions:
1. The grouping of the head nominals of antecedents together with restrictive or appositive relative clauses has to do with the type of determination of the head nominal of the antecedent.
2. Three fundamental types of determination by means of the presence (or absence) of the article can be distinguished, namely definite, specific and generic determination. Quantifiers and demonstratives are more concrete types of determiners. The three fundamental types are defined as follows:
Definite determination indicates that a certain group of referents which fall under the determined concept exists in the speech situation (in Lehmann’s terminology, Redeuniversum) and that they are all involved.
Specific determination builds a real subgroup of the group referred to by the initial concept (in Lehmann’s terminology, Ausgangsbegriff) without fixing its extension. It indicates also that a complementary group of elements which are referred to by the same concept has to be accounted for, but is not referred to.
Generic determination indicates the opposite of specific determination, namely that no subgroup is delimited and, therefore, no elements are excluded. Generic determination assists in referring to a group denoted by a concept with exclusion of the present speech situation.
3. If the head nominal of an antecedent is definite or generic, it groups together with an appositive relative clause. If it is not definite or generic, but optionally specific, it groups together with a restrictive relative clause.
4. The scope of determiners differs between relative constructions with restrictive and appositive relative clauses. In the former case, the scope of the determiner includes the head nominal and the relative clause. In the latter case, it includes the head nominal, but not the relative clause as well.
5. Quantifiers usually occur together with articles and also have an influence on the type of relative clause which groups together with the head nominal. For example, head nominals with universal quantifiers group almost exclusively with restrictive relative clauses, whereas head nominals with some other quantifiers group together with restrictive or appositive relative clauses.
6. Proper nouns and personal pronouns, which are inherently definite, group almost exclusively with appositive relative clauses.
7. Both restrictive and appositive relative clauses can stack. When a restrictive and an appositive relative clause group together, they can also stack, but only in that order.
The application of Lehmann’s views to groupings in nominal relative constructions in the Greek New Testament indicated that they were applicable and valuable for an understanding of these phenomena. It also showed that New Testament Greek corresponded to a large extent with a number of modern (and other ancient) languages in this regard.
The following are some of the specific findings of the research:
1. Groupings involving restrictive relative clauses
Restrictive relative clauses in the New Testament group together with head nominals which are not definite or generic, but could be specific. In this case the scope of the article (or its absence) includes the head nominal and the restrictive relative clause, for example in Matt. 8:4c and John 1:30a. The same principle applies in relative constructions with adjoined relative clauses, for example in John 9:24a.
In cases where a universal quantifier such as πᾶς (every, each, all, whole [in the latter meaning with the article], any), οὐδείς (no, none) and ἕκαστος (each) precedes the head nominal, the relative clause is almost always restrictive – cf. Jude 15b (πᾶσαν), John 16:15a (πάντα) and Mark 9:39b (οὐδείς). In a few instances, however, an appositive relative clause occurs after a head nominal with a universal quantifier, for example in Rom. 1:5b–6a (πᾶσιν) and 2 Tim. 1:15b (πάντες).
Quantifiers like πολλοί (many), τινές (some), ὀλίγοι (a few), ἱκανοί (many, quite a few) occur freely with restrictive, as well as with appositive relative clauses – cf. τινές (some) in John 6:64a (followed by a restrictive relative clause) and Acts 24:19 (followed by an appositive relative clause).
A possible example of stacked restrictive relative clauses occurs in Luke 18:29b–30. In this case an asyndetic relative clause in verse 30 follows directly on a relative clause in verse 29b, after the same head nominal οὐδείς (nobody).
2. Groupings involving appositive relative clauses
Appositive relative clauses group together with head nominals that are definite or generic. In these cases the scope of the determiner, which could be an article (or its absence) or a quantifier, includes the head nominal, but not the relative clause as well, for example in 1 Tim. 1:4. In some instances the relative clause could be interpreted as appositive or restrictive, for example in Matt. 7:15.
Proper names which function as head nouns group almost exclusively with appositive relative clauses, for example, in 3 John 1 (Γαΐῳ, to Gaius) and Acts 21:29 (Τρόφιμον, Trophimus). In a few cases a proper noun groups together with a restrictive relative clause, for example Ἰησοῦν (Jesus) in Acts 19:13b and 1 Cor. 11:4a.
Only a few examples occur in the New Testament where a personal pronoun functions as head nominal of a relative construction. In Acts 10:40b–41c the relative clause after ἡμῖν (to us) is probably restrictive, and is also interpreted as such by all the Bible translations consulted. In some instances both an appositive and a restrictive interpretation is possible, for example in 1 Cor. 10:11b after ἡμῶν (to us).
It seems as if appositive relative clauses can also stack, for example in Rom. 16:3–5a, where an asyndetic relative clause follows directly on another relative clause in verse 4, with the same coordinate head nouns (Πρίσκαν, Priscilla, and Ἀκύλαν, Aquila).
A possible example of stacking of a restrictive relative clause and an asyndetic appositive relative clause which follows directly on it occurs in Luke 18:29b–30, although both relative clauses could also be interpreted as restrictive in the context. An example of stacking of a participial restrictive relative clause and an appositive one (with a finite verb), in that order, occurs in Matt. 27:55–6. No examples were found where an appositive relative clause stacks with an asyndetic restrictive relative clause following it.
Conference Presentations by Herman C Du Toit
The paper discusses the semantics of relative sentences in the Greek New Testament, as well as th... more The paper discusses the semantics of relative sentences in the Greek New Testament, as well as the syntax of relative constructions within the framework of modern linguistics.
The paper deals with factors that influence the co-occurrence of restrictive and appositive relat... more The paper deals with factors that influence the co-occurrence of restrictive and appositive relative clauses with certain head-nominals in relative constructions in the Greek New Testament. The paper addresses also the "stacking" of relative clauses, i.e. situations where a relative clause is directly followed by another one, without being linked to it by a conjunction.
Uploads
Papers by Herman C Du Toit
Most relative constructions in the Greek New Testament consist of an overt nominal antecedent and a postnominal relative clause. Syntactically, relative constructions of this type are determiner-phrases, with the antecedent consisting typically of a head-noun, together with a combination of other elements, for example, articles, quantifiers, adjectives and prepositional phrases. The antecedent is followed directly by a restrictive or appositive relative clause which is embedded in the determiner-phrase.
Within such nominal relative constructions, there appears to be a relationship between the head nominal of the antecedent and the type of relative clause (restrictive or appositive) that typically groups together with it. There are possibly also examples of a related phenomenon in nominal relative constructions where more than one relative clause group together (technically, stack) after the same antecedent.
A scrutiny of the literature on the Greek New Testament indicated that there existed no in-depth discussion of these phenomena, except for some remarks in Du Toit (1984:188–99; 2014:23–5) and occasional references in New Testament grammars to passages where a high percentage of relative clauses occur, for example, 1 Cor. 15:1–2 and Rom. 9:4ff. (Robertson 1919:954).
However, research indicated that Lehmann (1984), which is still the standard publication on relative constructions in a variety of languages and widely quoted in recent publications, contains a number of important insights that could shed light on the above phenomena. In addition, some publications on modern languages offer useful information in this respect.
The objective of the research that underlay this paper was to apply these insights and information systematically to nominal relative constructions in the Greek New Testament and ascertain their usefulness in understanding and describing the above phenomena. The research focused only on nominal relative constructions with overt antecedents. Nominal relative constructions without antecedents (often referred to as free relatives) did not form part of the research.
The following are the main points made by Lehmann (1984:259–67) with regard to groupings in nominal relative constructions:
1. The grouping of the head nominals of antecedents together with restrictive or appositive relative clauses has to do with the type of determination of the head nominal of the antecedent.
2. Three fundamental types of determination by means of the presence (or absence) of the article can be distinguished, namely definite, specific and generic determination. Quantifiers and demonstratives are more concrete types of determiners. The three fundamental types are defined as follows:
Definite determination indicates that a certain group of referents which fall under the determined concept exists in the speech situation (in Lehmann’s terminology, Redeuniversum) and that they are all involved.
Specific determination builds a real subgroup of the group referred to by the initial concept (in Lehmann’s terminology, Ausgangsbegriff) without fixing its extension. It indicates also that a complementary group of elements which are referred to by the same concept has to be accounted for, but is not referred to.
Generic determination indicates the opposite of specific determination, namely that no subgroup is delimited and, therefore, no elements are excluded. Generic determination assists in referring to a group denoted by a concept with exclusion of the present speech situation.
3. If the head nominal of an antecedent is definite or generic, it groups together with an appositive relative clause. If it is not definite or generic, but optionally specific, it groups together with a restrictive relative clause.
4. The scope of determiners differs between relative constructions with restrictive and appositive relative clauses. In the former case, the scope of the determiner includes the head nominal and the relative clause. In the latter case, it includes the head nominal, but not the relative clause as well.
5. Quantifiers usually occur together with articles and also have an influence on the type of relative clause which groups together with the head nominal. For example, head nominals with universal quantifiers group almost exclusively with restrictive relative clauses, whereas head nominals with some other quantifiers group together with restrictive or appositive relative clauses.
6. Proper nouns and personal pronouns, which are inherently definite, group almost exclusively with appositive relative clauses.
7. Both restrictive and appositive relative clauses can stack. When a restrictive and an appositive relative clause group together, they can also stack, but only in that order.
The application of Lehmann’s views to groupings in nominal relative constructions in the Greek New Testament indicated that they were applicable and valuable for an understanding of these phenomena. It also showed that New Testament Greek corresponded to a large extent with a number of modern (and other ancient) languages in this regard.
The following are some of the specific findings of the research:
1. Groupings involving restrictive relative clauses
Restrictive relative clauses in the New Testament group together with head nominals which are not definite or generic, but could be specific. In this case the scope of the article (or its absence) includes the head nominal and the restrictive relative clause, for example in Matt. 8:4c and John 1:30a. The same principle applies in relative constructions with adjoined relative clauses, for example in John 9:24a.
In cases where a universal quantifier such as πᾶς (every, each, all, whole [in the latter meaning with the article], any), οὐδείς (no, none) and ἕκαστος (each) precedes the head nominal, the relative clause is almost always restrictive – cf. Jude 15b (πᾶσαν), John 16:15a (πάντα) and Mark 9:39b (οὐδείς). In a few instances, however, an appositive relative clause occurs after a head nominal with a universal quantifier, for example in Rom. 1:5b–6a (πᾶσιν) and 2 Tim. 1:15b (πάντες).
Quantifiers like πολλοί (many), τινές (some), ὀλίγοι (a few), ἱκανοί (many, quite a few) occur freely with restrictive, as well as with appositive relative clauses – cf. τινές (some) in John 6:64a (followed by a restrictive relative clause) and Acts 24:19 (followed by an appositive relative clause).
A possible example of stacked restrictive relative clauses occurs in Luke 18:29b–30. In this case an asyndetic relative clause in verse 30 follows directly on a relative clause in verse 29b, after the same head nominal οὐδείς (nobody).
2. Groupings involving appositive relative clauses
Appositive relative clauses group together with head nominals that are definite or generic. In these cases the scope of the determiner, which could be an article (or its absence) or a quantifier, includes the head nominal, but not the relative clause as well, for example in 1 Tim. 1:4. In some instances the relative clause could be interpreted as appositive or restrictive, for example in Matt. 7:15.
Proper names which function as head nouns group almost exclusively with appositive relative clauses, for example, in 3 John 1 (Γαΐῳ, to Gaius) and Acts 21:29 (Τρόφιμον, Trophimus). In a few cases a proper noun groups together with a restrictive relative clause, for example Ἰησοῦν (Jesus) in Acts 19:13b and 1 Cor. 11:4a.
Only a few examples occur in the New Testament where a personal pronoun functions as head nominal of a relative construction. In Acts 10:40b–41c the relative clause after ἡμῖν (to us) is probably restrictive, and is also interpreted as such by all the Bible translations consulted. In some instances both an appositive and a restrictive interpretation is possible, for example in 1 Cor. 10:11b after ἡμῶν (to us).
It seems as if appositive relative clauses can also stack, for example in Rom. 16:3–5a, where an asyndetic relative clause follows directly on another relative clause in verse 4, with the same coordinate head nouns (Πρίσκαν, Priscilla, and Ἀκύλαν, Aquila).
A possible example of stacking of a restrictive relative clause and an asyndetic appositive relative clause which follows directly on it occurs in Luke 18:29b–30, although both relative clauses could also be interpreted as restrictive in the context. An example of stacking of a participial restrictive relative clause and an appositive one (with a finite verb), in that order, occurs in Matt. 27:55–6. No examples were found where an appositive relative clause stacks with an asyndetic restrictive relative clause following it.
Conference Presentations by Herman C Du Toit
Most relative constructions in the Greek New Testament consist of an overt nominal antecedent and a postnominal relative clause. Syntactically, relative constructions of this type are determiner-phrases, with the antecedent consisting typically of a head-noun, together with a combination of other elements, for example, articles, quantifiers, adjectives and prepositional phrases. The antecedent is followed directly by a restrictive or appositive relative clause which is embedded in the determiner-phrase.
Within such nominal relative constructions, there appears to be a relationship between the head nominal of the antecedent and the type of relative clause (restrictive or appositive) that typically groups together with it. There are possibly also examples of a related phenomenon in nominal relative constructions where more than one relative clause group together (technically, stack) after the same antecedent.
A scrutiny of the literature on the Greek New Testament indicated that there existed no in-depth discussion of these phenomena, except for some remarks in Du Toit (1984:188–99; 2014:23–5) and occasional references in New Testament grammars to passages where a high percentage of relative clauses occur, for example, 1 Cor. 15:1–2 and Rom. 9:4ff. (Robertson 1919:954).
However, research indicated that Lehmann (1984), which is still the standard publication on relative constructions in a variety of languages and widely quoted in recent publications, contains a number of important insights that could shed light on the above phenomena. In addition, some publications on modern languages offer useful information in this respect.
The objective of the research that underlay this paper was to apply these insights and information systematically to nominal relative constructions in the Greek New Testament and ascertain their usefulness in understanding and describing the above phenomena. The research focused only on nominal relative constructions with overt antecedents. Nominal relative constructions without antecedents (often referred to as free relatives) did not form part of the research.
The following are the main points made by Lehmann (1984:259–67) with regard to groupings in nominal relative constructions:
1. The grouping of the head nominals of antecedents together with restrictive or appositive relative clauses has to do with the type of determination of the head nominal of the antecedent.
2. Three fundamental types of determination by means of the presence (or absence) of the article can be distinguished, namely definite, specific and generic determination. Quantifiers and demonstratives are more concrete types of determiners. The three fundamental types are defined as follows:
Definite determination indicates that a certain group of referents which fall under the determined concept exists in the speech situation (in Lehmann’s terminology, Redeuniversum) and that they are all involved.
Specific determination builds a real subgroup of the group referred to by the initial concept (in Lehmann’s terminology, Ausgangsbegriff) without fixing its extension. It indicates also that a complementary group of elements which are referred to by the same concept has to be accounted for, but is not referred to.
Generic determination indicates the opposite of specific determination, namely that no subgroup is delimited and, therefore, no elements are excluded. Generic determination assists in referring to a group denoted by a concept with exclusion of the present speech situation.
3. If the head nominal of an antecedent is definite or generic, it groups together with an appositive relative clause. If it is not definite or generic, but optionally specific, it groups together with a restrictive relative clause.
4. The scope of determiners differs between relative constructions with restrictive and appositive relative clauses. In the former case, the scope of the determiner includes the head nominal and the relative clause. In the latter case, it includes the head nominal, but not the relative clause as well.
5. Quantifiers usually occur together with articles and also have an influence on the type of relative clause which groups together with the head nominal. For example, head nominals with universal quantifiers group almost exclusively with restrictive relative clauses, whereas head nominals with some other quantifiers group together with restrictive or appositive relative clauses.
6. Proper nouns and personal pronouns, which are inherently definite, group almost exclusively with appositive relative clauses.
7. Both restrictive and appositive relative clauses can stack. When a restrictive and an appositive relative clause group together, they can also stack, but only in that order.
The application of Lehmann’s views to groupings in nominal relative constructions in the Greek New Testament indicated that they were applicable and valuable for an understanding of these phenomena. It also showed that New Testament Greek corresponded to a large extent with a number of modern (and other ancient) languages in this regard.
The following are some of the specific findings of the research:
1. Groupings involving restrictive relative clauses
Restrictive relative clauses in the New Testament group together with head nominals which are not definite or generic, but could be specific. In this case the scope of the article (or its absence) includes the head nominal and the restrictive relative clause, for example in Matt. 8:4c and John 1:30a. The same principle applies in relative constructions with adjoined relative clauses, for example in John 9:24a.
In cases where a universal quantifier such as πᾶς (every, each, all, whole [in the latter meaning with the article], any), οὐδείς (no, none) and ἕκαστος (each) precedes the head nominal, the relative clause is almost always restrictive – cf. Jude 15b (πᾶσαν), John 16:15a (πάντα) and Mark 9:39b (οὐδείς). In a few instances, however, an appositive relative clause occurs after a head nominal with a universal quantifier, for example in Rom. 1:5b–6a (πᾶσιν) and 2 Tim. 1:15b (πάντες).
Quantifiers like πολλοί (many), τινές (some), ὀλίγοι (a few), ἱκανοί (many, quite a few) occur freely with restrictive, as well as with appositive relative clauses – cf. τινές (some) in John 6:64a (followed by a restrictive relative clause) and Acts 24:19 (followed by an appositive relative clause).
A possible example of stacked restrictive relative clauses occurs in Luke 18:29b–30. In this case an asyndetic relative clause in verse 30 follows directly on a relative clause in verse 29b, after the same head nominal οὐδείς (nobody).
2. Groupings involving appositive relative clauses
Appositive relative clauses group together with head nominals that are definite or generic. In these cases the scope of the determiner, which could be an article (or its absence) or a quantifier, includes the head nominal, but not the relative clause as well, for example in 1 Tim. 1:4. In some instances the relative clause could be interpreted as appositive or restrictive, for example in Matt. 7:15.
Proper names which function as head nouns group almost exclusively with appositive relative clauses, for example, in 3 John 1 (Γαΐῳ, to Gaius) and Acts 21:29 (Τρόφιμον, Trophimus). In a few cases a proper noun groups together with a restrictive relative clause, for example Ἰησοῦν (Jesus) in Acts 19:13b and 1 Cor. 11:4a.
Only a few examples occur in the New Testament where a personal pronoun functions as head nominal of a relative construction. In Acts 10:40b–41c the relative clause after ἡμῖν (to us) is probably restrictive, and is also interpreted as such by all the Bible translations consulted. In some instances both an appositive and a restrictive interpretation is possible, for example in 1 Cor. 10:11b after ἡμῶν (to us).
It seems as if appositive relative clauses can also stack, for example in Rom. 16:3–5a, where an asyndetic relative clause follows directly on another relative clause in verse 4, with the same coordinate head nouns (Πρίσκαν, Priscilla, and Ἀκύλαν, Aquila).
A possible example of stacking of a restrictive relative clause and an asyndetic appositive relative clause which follows directly on it occurs in Luke 18:29b–30, although both relative clauses could also be interpreted as restrictive in the context. An example of stacking of a participial restrictive relative clause and an appositive one (with a finite verb), in that order, occurs in Matt. 27:55–6. No examples were found where an appositive relative clause stacks with an asyndetic restrictive relative clause following it.