Linguistic Adequacy & BDF

Since this post is appearing far later than I had intended, I would encourage you to quickly go back and review the previous post in the series: Linguistic adequacy and Greek grammar.

I must apologize first for the fact that we’re starting with BDF (Amazon Link). It is an incredibly dense and difficult to read volume. I’ve heard it said that if you know Greek well enough to have the ability to use BDF, then you probably don’t even actually need to use BDF anyway. And perhaps there’s some truth to that. Before moving forward with our examination of this grammar, however, we should talk a bit about the context in which it was written. Grammar writing in and of itself is a communicative act and grammars are written for particular audiences who expect to use them for particular purposes. This is true even of reference grammars (or perhaps especially of reference grammars). A reference grammar written for native speakers of a language has different goals than a reference grammar written for non-native speakers, for linguists/grammarians, or, in the case of most biblical students and scholars, those who are centrally interested in reading. Moreover, there is a tendency for each of these groups to assume that the wants and needs of the other groups ought to be identical to their own. These groups are interested in different questions when they pull the grammar off the bookshelf. BDF seems to fit primarily within the final two groups, perhaps with some greater emphasis on the last one. It’s also notable in that the grammar functions primarily as a supplement to Classical Greek—much of the discussion is framed in terms of how the Koine diverges from the classical standard.

I chose the following section from BDF primarily because it was something I read recently. It is probably worth emphasizing here that I did not decide to write about linguistic adequacy because of something I read in this section. I had the thought while actually reading a different grammar in conjunction with a conversation I had with a friend. I decided, then, that I would examine and evaluate some of the more prominent reference grammars to see how they stand up to contemporary linguistic standards of adequacy.

The section before us from BDF below comes from a larger section that examines (semantic) types of subordinate clauses in relationship to the indicative and subjunctive moods.

369. Final (purpose) clauses introduced by ἵνα, ὅπως (no longer with ὡς except in A 20:24 S* [§391(1)]), μή have greatly extended their sphere in the NT because a ἵνα-clause so often serves as periphrasis for the infinitive. We are concerned here with mood only, upon which the character of ἵνα (i.e. whether it indicates purpose or not) exerted no influence. (1) The mood in the NT is generally the subjunctive. The classical ‘oblique optative’ is never used even after a secondary tense in the NT nor elsewhere in the lower Koine vernacular; cf. Knuenz 15ff. (2) The future indicative has also been introduced to a very limited degree in the very places where it would not have been permissible in classical, i.e. after ἵνα and final μή, most frequently in Rev and usually with the aorist subjunctive as variant. (3) A special case is that in which a future connected by καί follows upon ἵνα or μή with the subjunctive to designate some further consequence: Jn 15:8 ἵνα καρπὸν … φέρητε καὶ γενήσεσθε (γένησθε BDL al.) ἐμοὶ μαθηταί, where the consequence has a kind of independence: ‘and then you will become …’. It is still more easily understood when it follows an independent subjunctive: Mk 6:37 ἀγοράσωμεν καὶ δώσομεν (p45ALΔ, -σωμεν SBD, al. δῶμεν). (4) The old Attic (Meisterhans 255) combination of ὅπως and ὅπως μή with the future indicative after verbs of reflection, striving, guarding is not found in the NT. Ἵνα (negated ἵνα μή, μή) is used throughout with these verbs, and ὅπως, in so far as it appears at all (never in Rev, once in Jn, not often in Paul), is confined to the purely final sense and to combinations with verbs of asking (παρακαλεῖν etc.). (5) Furthermore, ὅπως, with the exception of a few places in Lk and a quotation from the LXX, has lost the ἄν often appended in Attic (Hermann 267f.; Knuenz 13ff., 26ff.; Rosenkranz, IF 48 [1930] 166), especially in the older inscriptions (Meisterhans 254). Ἄν could not be joined to ἵνα and μή even in Attic. (6) The present indicative after ἵνα is, of course, only a corruption of the text.—For μή (μήποτε, μήπως) expressing apprehension s.

The basic structure of BDF is to make a set of numbered statements about grammatical aspects of the language. These statements are then followed by corresponding set of numbers lists of references. These references with the briefest of commentary are intended to function as the evidence or examples for the corresponding grammatical claims. Often times, debated examples are provided with some comment as to how they should be interpreted. BDF is known for its use of actual manuscripts rather than critical editions. This substantively contributes to the value since it allows us some observation not only about the grammar of the text, but also some insight into the kinds of grammatical variation found in the manuscripts.

The main problem with the initial set of grammatical observations is essentially that they are very little than that: observations. Here they are in a list format, with my own comments about what I view to be lacking, primarily framed in terms of questions that remain unanswered from the statements themselves:

  • (1) The mood in the NT is generally the subjunctive. The classical ‘oblique optative’ is never used even after a secondary tense in the NT nor elsewhere in the lower Koine vernacular; cf. Knuenz 15ff.

These statements are certainly true, but we are left wondering what motivated the disappearance of the ‘oblique optative.’ Does the dominance of the subjunctive in the NT and surrounding literature find it’s motivation in the language simplification processes that take place via koineization? Or should we be looking for some form of analogical leveling? Perhaps both? Does Knuenz 15ff. provide answers to these questions or does he simply contribute more data for this unmotivated observation?

  • (2) The future indicative has also been introduced to a very limited degree in the very places where it would not have been permissible in classical, i.e. after ἵνα and final μή, most frequently in Rev and usually with the aorist subjunctive as variant.

What motivates this introduction of the future indicative? Does it involve some particular aspect of final purpose clauses? Or it is primarily motivated by the nature of the future indicative as a semi-modal form to begin with? Is it limited to a specific semantic class of verbs (as with [4] below)? Surely such a change from Classical Greek to the the New Testament suggests at least some kind of semantic shift in order to motivate this new usage.

Also , when you say that the aorist subjunctive is usually a variant, why do you think that is? Is it primarily because of the morphological similarities between the aorist subjunctive and the future indicative? Can we attribute some semantic significance to the alternation of these variants?

  • (3) A special case is that in which a future connected by καί follows upon ἵνα or μή with the subjunctive to designate some further consequence: Jn 15:8 ἵνα καρπὸν … φέρητε καὶ γενήσεσθε (γένησθε BDL al.) ἐμοὶ μαθηταί, where the consequence has a kind of independence: ‘and then you will become …’. It is still more easily understood when it follows an independent subjunctive: Mk 6:37 ἀγοράσωμεν καὶ δώσομεν (p45ALΔ, -σωμεν SBD, al. δῶμεν).

This is probably the best statement we have so far. Here we have a data point: future connect by καἰ follows upon ἵνα or μή with the subjunctive” and then also a statement of the meaning of the construction. Unfortunately, what motivates the construction still is unstated. Why does this happen rather than merely add another subjunctive (which is what happens in BDF’s variant reading, which also happens to be the reading of the NA27)?

  • (4) The old Attic (Meisterhans 255) combination of ὅπως and ὅπως μή with the future indicative after verbs of reflection, striving, guarding is not found in the NT. Ἵνα (negated ἵνα μή, μή) is used throughout with these verbs, and ὅπως, in so far as it appears at all (never in Rev, once in Jn, not often in Paul), is confined to the purely final sense and to combinations with verbs of asking (παρακαλεῖν etc.).

Like statement (3), this is also more useful, BDF against connect structure and meaning together. We have an old construction with its meaning (and lexical condition) followed by the new Koine conjunction and its  meaning. We are still left with the question of motivation that keeps re-occurring with each of these.

  • (5) Furthermore, ὅπως, with the exception of a few places in Lk and a quotation from the LXX, has lost the ἄν often appended in Attic (Hermann 267f.; Knuenz 13ff., 26ff.; Rosenkranz, IF 48 [1930] 166), especially in the older inscriptions (Meisterhans 254). Ἄν could not be joined to ἵνα and μή even in Attic.

Okay. But what is it about the semantic nature of ἄν that prevents its collocation with ἵνα and μή? The fact that it doesn’t happen is certainly interesting, but surely the reason why would be even more interesting.

  • (6) The present indicative after ἵνα is, of course, only a corruption of the text.—For μή (μήποτε, μήπως) expressing apprehension s. §370.

This is useful, however, could there not also be an alternative explanation that an author simply made a production error? The use of μή to express apprehension, quite interesting. That would come pretty close to functioning as a communicative motivation for a grammatical structure.

But what we see as a whole is very plenty of observational statements of fact with no explanation of them. There is no principled account of why the data is the way it is. So the question then is: Is this observational account useful. Well, yes. It is to an extent. To the extent that the factoids collected here are accurate, they could function as an essential foundation for creating a principled account of why the data is the way it is. The fact of the matter is that BDF feels like the beginning of a grammar. All the data is collected and initial observations made, but there are no connections between the dots at all. Just data points floating around in space unrelated and without purpose.

Section §370. which follows at the end of this point for reference, functions as providing the specific examples that BDF views as relevant as evidence of their statements. This approach is as perplexing as it is interesting. In some sense, this becomes useful to commentary writers and those doing exegesis/general reading of Greek. The problem is that the way BDF is used and cited in commentaries isn’t useful at all. Consider Revelation 22:14

Μακάριοι οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν.

WBC on this verse makes the following statement (Amazon):

ἵνα can be construed several ways (see Notes 14:13.f. and 16:15.c.): (1) as introducing a final or purpose clause, i.e., “in order that they will have access to the tree of life” (BDF §369[2]; Turner, Syntax, 102), (2) as introducing a causal clause, “because they will have access to the tree of life” (i.e., ἵνα = ὅτι, as the ἵνα in Mark 4:12 = Luke 8:10 becomes ὅτι in Matt 13:13), a usage that is also found in 14:13 and 16:15, or (3) as the imper use of ἵνα: e.g., “may their right be to the tree of life”.

Aune, Revelation 1198.

It is interesting here that only Aune’s option (1) actually reference citation support. But what I wonder is just how helpful the citation is. All BDF §369(2) says is that the future indicative with ἵνα is used to mark final purpose clauses. You cannot use BDF §369(2) to make a judgment about a particular instance because BDF makes no statement about why a particular construction that can be used to mark that meaning as opposed to another meaning. Once again we are back to the problem of having no principled account.

With BDF, the question never answered is: Why?

Will another, perhaps less terse, traditional grammars do better? We’ll see in the coming weeks.

 

Examples of Final purpose clauses from BDF

§370.

Pap. ὡς (ὡς ἄν) iii BC 4 times, ii–i BC 18 times; Mayser II 1, 258–61. Cf. Rob. 982. D. Buzy, Les sentences finales des paraboles évangéliques (RB 40 [1931] 321–44). On ὅπως- and ἵνα-clauses in the Apocr. Gospels Ghedini, Vang. ap. 474–8. Kalinka, WSt 55 (1937) 91–4 (compendium of the results of the work of Knuenz).

(1) The alleged opt. δῴη E 1:17 is subj. (§95(2); B correctly δῷ). Τίς δώῃ = מִי יִתֵּן is frequent in the LXX and is an unmistakable subj. The subj. with ὅπως is aor. except ὅπως ᾖ Mt 6:4 and ὅπως μὴ δύνωνται Lk 16:26. Mayser II 1, 240ff. (subj.), 295 (opt.).

(2) Fut.: Rev 22:14 ἵνα ἔσται … καὶ εἰσέλθωσιν (ἵνα here = ‘because’ ὅτι, as in 14:13), therefore both forms thought of as equivalent (? s. infra). In Paul: 1 C 9:15 ἵνα τις (οὐδείς is incorrect) κενώσει, 18 ἵνα θήσω, 13:3 παραδῶ ἵνα καυθήσομαι (incorrect -σωμαι CK, καυχήσωμαι p46SAB), G 2:4 καταδουλώσουσιν (SAB*CDE), Ph 2:11 ACD al. Further: 1 P 3:1 κερδηθήσονται; Jn 7:3 θεωρήσουσιν (-σωσι B3X al.), 17:2 δώσει (-ῃ ScACG al., δώσω S*, δῷς W, ἔχῃ D); Lk 14:10 ἐρεῖ (ADW al. εἴπῃ), 20:10 δώσουσιν (CDW al. δῶσιν); Mt 12:10 κατηγορήσουσιν DWX. After μή: C 2:8 βλέπετε μὴ … ἔσται, H 3:12 βλέπετε μήποτε ἔσται, Mt 7:6 μήποτε καταπατήσουσιν (-σωσιν SEG al.) … καὶ ῥήξωσιν. Cf. also Gregory 124. Rev 3:9 ἵνα ἥξουσιν (-ωσι 046) καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν (-σωσιν 046) … καὶ γνῶσιν (S γνώσῃ is not good); 8:3 δώσει (-ῃ P 046), 13:16 (written ΔΩΣΙ from which the wrong reading δωσι(ν) in all majuscules arose); 6:4, 11, 9:4, 5, 20, 13:12, 14:13 (ὅτι p47). 1 Th 5:10 ἵνα ζήσομεν (A; ζῶμεν D*E; the aor. is correct S etc. ‘live again’, i.e. at the parousia); ἄν is also omitted in the intervening clause εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν (cf. Ph 1:27 ἵνα εἴτε … ἀκού(σ)ω [subj.], Homil Clem 9:22 ἵνʼ ….ὅτε θελήσωσιν, ἀνέλωσιν). Interchange of fut. indic. and aor. subj. (cf. §363): Reinhold 106; Raderm.2 173f.; Melcher 90; Vogeser 34f.; Knuenz 23ff., 39.—On ‘causal’ ἵνα (Rev 22:14) s. Jannaris §1741; Hesseling and Pernot, Neophilologus 12 (1927) 41–6; Pernot, Études 90–5; Windisch, ZNW 26 (1927) 203–9; Robertson, Studies in Early Christianity, ed. by S. J. Case (N.Y. and London, 1928) 51–7. Of the NT exx. adduced by Hesseling and Pernot, Rev 22:14 at the best stands the test if μακάριοι … ἵνα = μακάριοι … ὅτι of Mt 5:3ff.; but ‘in order that’ (dependent on πλύοντες) is also possible; likewise Rev 16:15. 14:13 ἵνα (p47 ὅτι!) ἀναπαήσονται is a main clause ‘they shall rest’ (§387(3)). Mk 4:12 = Lk 8:10 ἵνα is final (theory that some arire incapable of repentance), softened by Mt 13:13 to causal ὅτι (διὰ τοῦτο in answer to διὰ τί 10). Ed. Schweizer, ThZ 8 (1952) 153f. accepts ἵνα in 1 P 4:6 as causal. Literature on causal ἵνα also in Zerwick, Graec. bibl. 95 n. The LXX is also ruled out: Gen 22:14 ἵνα ‘so that’ (§391(5)), likewise Epict.: 3.4.10 ἵνα is final, cf. θέλω in 11. But still there remain the grammarians (e.g. Apollonius Dysc., Synt. 3.28 [Gramm. Gr. ii 2, 382.2] explains ἵνα φιλολογήσω παρεγενήθη Τρύφων as identical with διότι ἐφιλολόγησα π. Τ.), the Church Fathers and late papyri (e.g. BGU IV 1081.3 [ii/iii AD] ἐχάρην ἵνα σε ἀσπάζομαι [however cf. §392(1a)]; Ghedini, Aegyptus 15 [1935] 236).

(3) A 21:24 ἵνα ξυρήσωνται (-σονται SB*D*E al.) … καὶ γνώσονται, E 6:3 OT ἵνα … γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ, R 3:4 OT ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς … καὶ νικήσεις (SADE), Lk 22:30 (many vv.ll.), 12:58 (μήποτε), Mt 5:25 (likewise), Mk 5:23 (acc. to A), Mt 13:5 = Jn 12:40 = A 28:27 (μήποτε or ἵνα μή) OT (Is 6:10); Mt 20:28 add. D μήποτε … ἐπέλθῃ … καὶ καταισχυνθήσῃ; Barn 4.3 ἵνα ταχύνῃ καὶ ἥξει (S for -ῃ), Herm Man 6.2.10, Sim 9.7.6, 28.5; Raderm.2 216. Following an impera.: Herm Vis 2.1.3 λάβε καὶ ἀποδώσεις μοι, Man 2.1 ἄκακος γίνου καὶ ἔσῃ (Lat. esto) ὡς … (Lk 22:10 ἀκολουθήσατε … καὶ ἐρεῖτε); Raderm.2 216f.

(4) The one instance in Jn is 11:57 where ὅπως is evidently used for the sake of variety since ἵνα has just preceded; the same thing applies to Paul in 1 C 1:29, 2 C 8:14, 2 Th 1:12 (not 2 C 8:11, G 1:4, Phm 6; ἵνα … ἵνα G 4:5, 1 C 4:6). Further Epict. 4.5.5, Tatian 41.8 Schwartz. For the expression of purpose Jn uses hardly anything but ἵνα and does not care for the final inf. at all. On the retreat of ὅπως in the Hell. period cf. Reinhold 106; Knuenz 9ff., 28, 34ff.; Schwyzer II 673. However, in the Ptol. pap. ὅπως is almost as frequent as ἵνα but four-fifths of the exx. are in official documents (Mayser II 1, 247–52, 256, 257, 261). Ἵνα in final object clauses: ibid. 242ff.; II 3, 51. Ὅπως and ἵνα often interchange (ibid. II 1, 245; cf. Diog. Oen. 60.1.8 οὐχ ἵνα … ἀλλʼ ὅπως, 1 Clem 65.1 ὅπως … εἰς τό with inf.). The fut. also appears infrequently with ὅπως in the pap. (ibid. 251).

(5) Ὅπως ἄν: Lk 2:35, A 3:20, 15:17 OT (from Amos 9:12, where our text does not have ἄν [Ziegler except in A as a back-reading]); in quotation also R 3:4 = Ps 50 (51): 6 (R 9:17 OT acc. p 188 to FG; from Ex 9:16, where our text is without ἄν). Mayser II 1, 254–7 (ὅπως ἄν very often in the pap., predominantly in official texts); II 3, 50. An uncertain ex. of ἵνα ἄν may be found in Mayser II 1, 246.

(6) Jn 5:20 SL, G 6:12 p46ACF al., T 2:4 S*AF al., E 1:18 FG ἵνα οἴδατε, etc. Cf. Gregory 125; Reinhold 106. Φυσιοῦσθε 1 C 4:6 and ζηλοῦτε G 4:17 are subjunctives, s. §91. Jn 17:24 θεωροῦσιν W, -ῶσιν W2, Rev 16:15 βλέπουσιν p47 minusc. IEph 4.2 ἵνα … ᾄδετε and ἵνα … μετέχετε (Reinhold 107). Only inferior orthography in the Ptol. pap. (Mayser II 1, 244d 1).—On the whole Rob. 980–7; Moule 138f.

8 thoughts on “Linguistic Adequacy & BDF

  1. I’ve often wondered this very thing. Without a description of why a construction has a particular meaning in a particular place, we’re stuck with simply claiming that it has it because we say so. On another note, it’s even weirder that certain modern translations translate sentences is ways that are entirely syntactically indefensible. If the translators have no discernible rationale and the reference grammars that the translators apparently ignore also have no discernible rationale, what is there to do?

      1. I suppose it is possible to just say, “We’re pretty sure that the participle here functions instrumentally/modally.” That would be fine with me. But it’s even weirder when it isn’t represented in a translation. If you’re preaching and you note that the participle is pretty clearly giving meaning as to the fulfillment of the main verb (or implied verb as in Romans 12:9) and you A) have no real linguistically compelling argument and B) it is not even remotely reflected in the translations people are reading then you’re going to have real trouble explaining things to people.

  2. Yeah. Concerning grammars of the Greek of the New Testament, what I like about BDF is its attempt at observational adequacy as least compared to other grammars on the market. Often, when I’m confused about a passage, BDF gives me the guidance that is usually overlooked by its competitors. These competitors in my experience hardly have any observational adequacy beyond the core cases. For the peripheral issues (the weird exceptions and special cases) I’ve found BDF useful. Yet, BDF can often read like a treatment of the exceptions, often from classical Attic Greek, and one should be familiar with that grammar (e.g. through Smyth) to get the most of its. Then there are topics like word order where none of them are adequate.

    As for answer the “why?” question, yeah, I have that problem with almost all of them, even Smyth. At best they list the options (hopefully completely), and the interpreter has to choose among them. I think Wallace offers some guidance to the student in the form of proposing English glosses to try out, but not everything can work with translation equivalents. I can’t remember if Robertson attempts descriptive adequacy. I think it does, but I usually have a tough time buying to the framework. For the little corner of Greek that Steve Runge addresses, I think he tries hard on this point and he is gifted with an ability to explain things clearly, but he’s more the exception than the rule. I’ve found I’ve needed to go to specialist monographs to get anything close to understanding how the various grammatical constructions and it can be hit and miss.

    1. I hear you. My comments about Wallace as going to be scathing. Personally, I’m more likely to go straight either to Blass’s second English edition (1898), to Robertson, or even Moulton-Winer. There’s at least a chance that in their much more extensive prose, there’s a little more that gets closer to descriptive motivation (even if it is limited to diachronics). Personally, I’m still convinced that the best grammar is still perhaps Kuhner before it was revised by other scholars. Kuhner attempts to put forward an actual theory of temporality beyond just Greek in his discussion of the verb.

      I’m also hopeful that Curtius might be more useful, too, in his more detailed monograph specifically on the verb, but I haven’t yet had time to dig into it more closely.

      1. I haven’t consulted Blass’s second English edition. How does it compare to BDF?

        For a particular aspectual issue, I have been consulting a number of authorities. Though still ongoing (missing Ruiperrez, Porter, etc.), I’ve carefully looked at the following, and I found Kuhner-Gerth, Mandilaras, and perhaps also Duhoux and Fanning, the most useful. But I haven’t evaluated them in terms of your framework.

        Albert Rijksbaron, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek (3d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).

        Yves Duhoux, Le verbe grec ancien : Éléments de morphologie et de syntaxe historiques (BCILL 104; 2d ed., rev’d and enlarged; Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 2000).

        Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996).

        Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach (SBG 5; New York: Lang, 1994).

        Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990).

        James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, Md.: University of America Press, 1979; typeset ed. 1988).

        Basil G. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 1973).

        James Hope Moulton, Wilbert Francis Howard, and Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Syntax (vol. 3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962).

        F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961).

        Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev’d ed. Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956).

        Eduard Schwyzer & Albert Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (vol. 2; Munich: Beck, 1950).

        F.-M. Abel, Grammaire du grec biblique suivie d’un choix de papyrus (Études bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1927).

        Edwin Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften (vol. 2, pt. 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1926).

        A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the List of Historical Research (1st ed.; New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914).

        Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek. First Part: The Syntax of the Simple Sentence Embracing the Doctrine of the Moods and Tenses (vol. 1; New York: American Book, 1900).

        Karl Brugmann, Griechische Grammatik (Lautlehre, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre und Syntax (3d ed.; Munich: Beck, 1900).

        Raphael Kühner and Bernhard Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, vol. 2, pt. 1 (3d ed.; Hannover: Hansche, 1898).

        Ernest de Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (3d ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898).

        A. N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time, Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek (London: Macmillan, 1897).

        1. That’s similar to my list, though I wish I knew French. Kuhner’s original edition (pre-aktionsart/zeitzart) is worth looking at either in the German or in its 1866 3rd English edition translated by Jeff (who started referring to it unjustly as his own grammar in that edition). Also on principle, I don’t refer to Turner’s volume on Syntax unless I feel like I absolutely must.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s