[sword-devel] kjv2003: two splits needed?

[Keith Ralston]

You should read up on the uses and origins of the article in Greek.  Dana
and Mantey have a nice brief description.  Robertson and Moulton have quite
a bit more to say.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org
> [mailto:owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org]On Behalf Of Eeli Kaikkonen
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:05 PM
> To: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] kjv2003: two splits needed?
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>
> > ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????????...
> > ALLA TOUTO ESTIN TO EIRHMENON...
> >  >But< ALLA
> >  >this< TOUTO
> >  >is< ESTIN
> >  >that< TO
> >  >which_was_spoken< EIRHMENON
> >
> > Let me know if you'd tag it differently.
> >
>
> "eirhmenon" = "that which was spoken". The article tells that the thing
> is something specific or known.  "eirhmenon" without the article tells
> us all that "to eirhmenon" says except that it's something known, and we
> have tagged the english definite article with the base word anyways.
>
> In bad English we could translate "this is _the spoken_". But because
> it's bad English, it's "_that which was spoken_". Some native English
> speaker can tell me if it would be right to say "this is which was
> spoken" and if "that which"  means different interpretation of the
> article.
>
> Does this make sense and do I have enough knowledge to talk about
> these things?
>
> > >hO tags "who" and "am".  I have been tagging implied verbs with their
> > >subjects.  KAI tags "also".
> > >
> > >I had placed the question of implied verbs to the group.  No
> one responded.
>
> Can you make the question again with some examples (I probably missed
> it)?. Now it is good time to make the consensus. I also want to make it
> right, not just how I think it is right. (Right is how WE think it is
> right, right?)
>
>   Sincerely Yours,
>       Eeli Kaikkonen <eekaikko@paju.oulu.fi> Suomi Finland
>