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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eeli Kaikkonen > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Suomi Finland >
