Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics [2 — 2013] 9781625648723, 1625648723

Citation preview

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics Volume 2 — 2013 Contents PAUL L. DANOVE Features of the Conceptualization of Transference in the New Testament

5

JONATHAN M. WATT Diminutive Suffixes in the Greek New Testament: A Cross-Linguistic Study

29

STANLEY E. PORTER θαυμάζω in Mark 6:6 and Luke 11:38: A Note on Monosemy

75

GREGORY P. FEWSTER Symbolizing Identity and the Role of Texts: Proposals, Prospects, and Some Comments on the Eucharist Meal

81

HUGHSON T. ONG Can Linguistic Analysis In Historical Jesus Research Stand on its Own? A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Matthew 26:36–27:26

109

Ancient Sources Index Modern Author Index

139 145

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

3

Senior Editors Professor Dr. Stanley E. Porter Dr. Matthew Brook O’Donnell Assistant Editors Gregory P. Fewster Dr. Christopher D. Land Editorial Board Dr. Martin Culy (Briercrest College and Seminary, Canada) Dr. Paul Danove (Villanova University, USA) Dr. Christopher D. Land (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Dr. Matthew Brook O’Donnell (University of Michigan, USA | McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Professor Dr. Stanley E. Porter (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Dr. Catherine Smith (University of Birmingham, UK) Dr. Jonathan Watt (Geneva College, USA) Dr. Cynthia Long Westfall (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics (BAGL) is an international journal that exists to further the application of modern linguistics to the study of Ancient and Biblical Greek, with a particular focus on the analysis of texts, including but not restricted to the Greek New Testament. The journal is hosted by McMaster Divinity College and works in conjunction with its Centre for Biblical Linguistics, Translation and Exegesis and the OpenText.org organization (www.opentext.org) in the sponsoring of conferences and symposia open to scholars and students researching in Greek linguistics who are interested in contributing to advancing the discussion and methods of the field of research. BAGL is a refereed on-line and print journal dedicated to distributing the results of significant research in the area of

4

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

linguistic theory and application to biblical and ancient Greek, and is open to all scholars, not just those connected to the Centre and the OpenText.org project. Accepted pieces are in the first instance posted on-line in page-consistent pdf format, and then (except for reviews) are published in print form each volume year. This format ensures timely posting of the most recent work in Greek linguistics with consistently referencable articles then available in permanent print form. Submissions to BAGL BAGL accepts submissions in five categories, and manuscripts are to be labeled as such at the time of submission: Articles Explorations Notes Responses Reviews/Review articles

Submissions should follow the BAGL style-guide which can be found at http://bagl.org, and should include an abstract, not longer than 100 words, two to six keywords, and identification of the type of article (which will be noted at the time of posting and publication). Submissions not following the style-guide will be returned to the author for revision before being considered by the editors. Submissions should be sent in electronic form (Word or RTF) to Stanley E. Porter at [email protected]. Assessment and response will be made within approximately two months of submission. Accepted submissions should be posted online within two months of acceptance. The online form of BAGL is found at http://bagl.org. Copyright © 2014 Wipf and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock, 199 W. 8th Ave., Eugene, OR 97401. ISBN 13: 978-1-62564-872-3 www.wipfandstock.com Manufactured in the U.S.A.

[BAGL 2 (2013) 5–28]

FEATURES OF THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF TRANSFERENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Paul L. Danove Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

Abstract: This article develops five features that describe the conceptualizations of the event of transference grammaticalized by New Testament verbs, and uses these features to formulate a model of the possible New Testament usages of transference. The discussion resolves all New Testament occurrences of verbs that designate transference into one of eighteen usages with distinct feature descriptions, and considers the usages of transference predicted by the feature model but not realized in the New Testament. (Article) Keywords: feature, transference, semantic, syntactic, verbal usage.

1. The Event of Transference An event is a cognitive schema of an action in which two, three, or four entities are set in a particular relation to each other.1 Events are bare concepts of general categories of actions. The event of transference logically places four entities into relation: that which transfers, that which is transferred, the locale from which the transferred entity moves, and the locale to which the transferred entity moves. These descriptions correspond to the semantic functions Agent (the entity that actively instigates an action and/or is the ultimate cause of a change in another entity), Theme (the entity moving from one place to another or located in a place), Source (the literal or figurative entity from which something moves), and Goal (the literal or figurative entity

1.

See Goddard, Semantic Analysis, 197–98.

6

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

towards which something moves).2 In the event of transference, the Agent instigates and initiates the motion of the Theme; and the Theme is coincident with the Source at the initiation of transference and with the Goal at the termination of transference. The Theme moves along a continuous path from the Source to the Goal, where its motion ceases.3 This event does not specify uniquely the locale of the Agent, which may be at the Source (“He cast it into the sea,” Rev 18:21) or the Goal (“I will draw everyone to myself,” John 12:32), or in motion (“He brought him to Jerusalem,” Luke 4:9): (Agent) (Agent) Source/Theme

Goal/Theme (Agent)

This event includes two fixed entities, the Source and the Goal, and so admits to resolution into two segments: initial, which includes the path of the Theme from its point of coincidence with the Source; and terminal, which includes the path of the Theme to its point of coincidence with the Goal. For the purpose of this study, the transition from the initial to the terminal segment of the event may occur at any point along the path. 2. Features of the Conceptualization of the Event of Transference The bare concept of transference is qualified in general and specific ways. General qualifications are described by features that specify the conceptualization of transference associated with a number of verbs. Specific qualifications are associated with the unique denotation of each verb. Verbs that designate a conceptualization of transference with the same features constitute a verbal usage. The following discussion develops five usage features that specify various constraints on the conceptualization of 2. These and subsequent semantic functions receive description according to the thematic roles developed in Saeed, Semantics, 139–71 and Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis, 31–45. 3. See Jackendoff, “Measuring Out,” 317–18.

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

7

transference: subject affectedness, impetus, perspective, focus, and functionality.4 2.1 Feature 1: Subject Affectedness English verbs that designate transference are restricted to active usages, that is, usages with active base forms; and passive forms of verbs with these active usages indicate passivization in which the Theme is elevated to the status of the verbal subject. Greek verbs that designate transference, in contrast, may have active, middle, and passive usages; and verbs with the active and middle usages may appear with passive forms by passivization. Greek active, middle, and passive base forms signal differing conceptualizations of the affectedness of the first complement (subject/ Agent).5 Active base forms typically are neutral because they offer no clarification concerning the affectedness of the subject. Middle and passive base forms, however, signal that the Agent is affected. This discussion develops a three-fold distinction in the implications of active, middle, and passive base forms of verbs that designate transference. Active base forms of Greek (and English) verbs typically provide no guidance in determining whether the first complement is affected. Thus, both ἀποκτείνω (kill) and ἀποθνῄσκω (die) use active base forms in Greek (and English), even though the one who kills is not affected and the one who dies necessarily is affected. Greek and English verbs that designate transference, however, deviate from this norm in that their active base forms consistently signal that the subject is unaffected. In fact, the interpretation of unaffectedness can be overcome only by

4. These usage features constitute a development of those introduced in Danove, “Verbs of Transference,” 53–71 and in Danove, Grammatical and Exegetical Study. 5. Lyons, Linguistics, 373, discusses the nature of this affectedness; cf. Allan, Middle Voice, 19–20. Saeed, Semantics, 162–65, considers various categories of affectedness.

8

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

reintroducing the entity designated by the first complement in another grammatical capacity elsewhere in the clause:6 [Χριστοῦ] ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν ἄμωνον τῷ θεῷ (Heb 9:14) [Christ] who through the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God. ἔβαλεν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν (John 21:7) He threw himself into the sea.

In these examples, replacing the reflexive pronoun with a word that designates an entity other than the subject removes all implication of subject affectedness. Although both middle and passive base forms in Greek signal the affectedness of the subject, they admit to a rigorous distinction with verbs of transference. Passive base forms indicate that an entity internal to the event, the Theme, introduces the subject’s affectedness. Middle base forms, in contrast, indicate that the subject’s affectedness is not introduced by an entity internal to the event. This discussion identifies the subject affectedness signaled by passive base forms as “internal affectedness” and that signaled by middle base forms as “external affectedness.”7 An example of active and middle usages of transference with the same Greek verb appears with παρατίθημι:8 Act.

ἄλλην παραβολὴν παρέθηκεν αὐτοῖς (Matt 13:24) He set another parable before them.

Mid. παρέθεντο αὐτοὺς τῷ κυρίῳ… (Acts 14:23) They entrusted them to the Lord….

6. All New Testament and LXX citations are taken from Aland et al., eds., Greek New Testament and Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta. The translations are my own. 7. Further discussion of external affectedness (mid.) appears in Allan, Middle Voice, 112–14; Rijksbaron, Verb in Classical Greek, 147–50; and Bakker, “Voice, Aspect, and Aktionsart,” 36. 8. The translation of verbs with other than active usages of transference receives further consideration in the context of the discussion of their usages.

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

9

The active/middle base forms signal that the subject is unaffected (act.)/externally affected (mid.). Semantically, verbs with active and middle usages of transference (Tra.) are three-place because they require completion by three arguments. Syntactically, they are ditransitive (ditr.) because the subject is an Agent, and all three arguments must be realized when the requirements for the permissible omission of complements (i.e., for null complements) are not met.9 Feature descriptions for these occurrences note the conceptualization of transference by placing after the verb an abbreviated statement of the event’s four entities: A (Agent), Θ (Theme), S (Source), and G (Goal). After this description and in parentheses, appear the event that is conceptualized (Tra.), the affectedness of the subject (either unaffected or externally affected [act. or mid.]), and the syntactic information that the verb requires completion by three complements (ditr.). The complete feature description appears in carets, < >: παρατίθημι παρατίθημι

A verb admits to interpretation with a passive usage of transference whenever (1) the verb is passive in form, (2) the verb realizes at most two complements, the subject and a local complement (Source or Goal), and (3) the context does not identify a definite semantic referent for the Agent of the verb when it is interpreted with the passivized form of an active usage of transference. When these conditions are met, the verb has two possible interpretations of transference: the passivized form of an active usage (Tra. act.) with the Agent indefinite and null, or a

9. Null complements may be either definite, that is, having a definite semantic content retrievable from the context, or indefinite, that is, having no definite semantic content retrievable from the context. Definite null complements are developed in Mittwoch, “Idioms,” 255–59; Matthews, Syntax, 125–26; and Allerton, Valency, 34, 68–70. Indefinite null complements are developed in Fraser and Ross, “Idioms,” 264–65; and Sag and Hankamer, “Anaphoric Processing,” 325–45.

10

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

passive usage (Tra. pass.) with the co-referential Theme definite and null. These conditions are met in the following occurrence of διασπείρω:10 πάντες δὲ διεσπάρησαν κατὰ τὰς χώρας τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας πλὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων (Acts 8:1) Tra. Act.

All but the apostles were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.

Tra. Pass.

All but the apostles scattered themselves throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.

This two-fold interpretation is grammatically possible because an occurrence with these interpretations realizes only two complements: Realized Complements

Unrealized Complement

Tra. Act. subject/Theme

Source or Goal

indefinite Agent

Tra. Pass. subject/Agent

Source or Goal

co-referential Theme

Examples of active and passive usages of transference appear with προστίθημι: Act.

τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν μεριμνῶν δύναται ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ προσθεῖναι πῆχυν; (Luke 12:25) But who among you…is able to add a cubit onto his age/ height?

Pass. προσετέθη ὄχλος ἱκανὸς τῷ κυρίῳ (Acts 11:24) A substantial crowd added itself/themselves to the Lord.

Passive base forms signal that the subject is internally affected (pass.) because the Agent and Theme are co-referential, that is, the subject acts on itself. Semantically, verbs with active and passive usages of transference require completion by three arguments and are three-place. Syntactically, the active usage is ditransitive (ditr.) in both Greek and English. In English, the passive usage is ditransitive (ditr.); and verbs realize the Theme by a form of the reflexive pronoun “self.” Since the passive base 10. Procedures for weighing the relative merits of one interpretation over another appear in Danove, “Christological Implications,” 27–43.

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

11

forms in Greek clarify that the Agent and Theme are co-referential, the Theme consistently is omitted; and verbs are syntactically transitive (trans.) because they realize only the Agent and the required local complement when the requirements for null complements are not met. The following feature descriptions detail these considerations: προστίθημι προστίθημι

Passivization, in which the Theme functions as the verbal subject, is redundant in the passive usage of transference in Greek because the Agent and Theme are co-referential.11 2.2 Feature 2: Impetus In the conceptualization of transference, the Agent provides either an initial discrete impetus that sets the Theme in motion or a continuous impetus that sets and sustains the Theme in motion. Since Greek and English do not mark impetus on verbs, it must be determined from the nature of the action designated by the verb. In the following examples, βάλλω is characterized by a discrete impetus (–imp.) and φέρω by a continuous impetus (+imp.): –Imp. ὁ πράκτωρ σε βαλεῖ εἰς φυλακήν (Luke 12:58) The officer will throw you into prison. +Imp. φέρουσιν αὐτῷ τυφλὸν (Mark 8:22) They bring to him a blind man.

Feature descriptions note discrete impetus (–imp.) or continuous impetus (+imp.) immediately after the statement of event entities: βάλλω φέρω

11. The use of passive base forms to signal internal affectedness offers insight into passivization in which the passive verb forms signal that the newly elevated subject/Theme is affected by an entity (Agent) internal to the event.

12

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

Verbs maintain the same impetus (either +imp. or –imp.) with all their usages. 2.3 Feature 3: Perspective Although the event of transference incorporates four logical entities, Greek (and English) verbs can require completion by, and so govern without ambiguity the relationships among, at most three required arguments. Greek and English conceptualizations address the disparity in logical/semantic requirements by assuming one of two perspectives on the initiation of the transference, at which the Theme and Source are coincident and the Theme is beginning its motion toward the Goal. With the first perspective, the Agent is conceptualized as coincident with/proximate to the Source. With the second perspective, the Agent is conceptualized as coincident with/in the direction of the Goal. With these perspectives, verbs omit consideration of either the coincident/ proximate Source (S=A) or coincident/co-directional Goal (G=A), which may be retrieved from the Agent, and raise the remaining three logical entities to the status of verbal arguments: S=A διὰ τοῦτο ἔπεμψα ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον (1 Cor 4:17) Because of this I sent Timothy [from me] to you. G=A παρένεγκε τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ (Mark 14:36) [You] take this cup from me [to yourself].

In 1 Cor 4:17, Paul (Agent) is conceptualized as coincident with/ proximate to the Source, the initial locale of Timothy (Theme). In Mark 14:36, God (Agent) is conceptualized as coincident with/in the direction of the Goal toward which the cup (Theme) initially moves. Feature descriptions note perspective by placing the omitted entity in square brackets, within the statement of the event and then specifying the entity from which the omitted entity may be retrieved, [S=A] or [G=A], immediately after the event description: πέμπω παραφέρω

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

13

Verbs that grammaticalize multiple conceptualizations of transference maintain the same perspective (either S=A or G=A) with all usages except for δανίζω, which assumes different perspectives (S=A/G=A) with active/middle usages /: S=A καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς δανίζουσιν (Luke 6:34) Even sinners lend [from sinners] to sinners. G=A τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς (Matt 5:42) Do not turn away the one wishing to borrow from you [to the one…].

Although English verbs of transference generally maintain the same perspective with all usages, those that designate a change in proprietary use (like δανίζω) similarly may change perspective with different usages, as in the following examples of “lease.” S=A She leased the cabin to him.

G=A He leased the cabin from her.

This and following discussions attribute the change in perspective with δανίζω to an intruding grammatical principle that is restricted to the conceptualization of the exchange of proprietary use and so deem the perspective to remain consistent for a verb with multiple usages of transference.12 2.4 Feature 4: Focus The conceptualization of transference may bring into focus either both segments of the event or only the segment containing the Agent.13 Conceptualizations that focus on both segments of 12. Further consideration of perspective-changing verbs of proprietary use appears in Allan, Middle Voice, 117–18. 13. A focus only on the segment not containing the Agent is excluded because the conceptualization of transference requires an Agent that instigates the action.

14

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

transference give rise to primary (pri.) usages that permit retrieval of all four entities of transference. Conceptualizations that focus only on the segment containing the Agent, in contrast, give rise to secondary (sec.) usages that do not permit retrieval of the Source or Goal of the segment that is not in focus. Verbs with secondary usages of transference raise as required complements the Agent, Theme, and local complement (Source or Goal) with which the Agent is coincident/proximate (Source) or coincident/co-directional (Goal). Thus, verbs with secondary usages clarify or emphasize the initial locale of the Agent. The primary/secondary contrast appears in the following occurrences of ἀποστέλλω: pri.

καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ (Mark 8:26) He sent him to his house.

sec.

ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ (John 1:6) A human being, sent from God.

In Mark 8:26, the verb permits the retrieval of all four entities of transference because Jesus (he) and the man (him) are conceptualized as initially coincident or proximate. In John 1:6, however, the verb does not permit the retrieval of the Goal but emphasizes John’s initial locale with God. A verb’s primary and secondary usages of transference have the same perspective, either S=A or G=A, but differ in the local entity that is raised as a required argument: Source for one usage and Goal for the other. Feature descriptions note primary usages by placing the unrealized but retrievable entity in square brackets, and secondary usages by placing the unrealized and irretrievable entity in parentheses. The other notations appear in the usual format: ἀποστέλλω ἀποστέλλω

2.5 Feature 5: Functionality Each logical entity of the event of transference is associated with a specific semantic function (Agent, Theme, Source, or Goal). A change in functionality occurs when the conceptualization attributes to the entity toward which the Theme moves (Goal) the

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

15

function of the Theme’s abiding locale at the termination of transference. This entity then functions as a semantic Locative (the literal or figurative place in which an entity is situated or an event occurs). The change in functionality from Goal to Locative (G L) produces for verbs usages of transference that differ only in this feature, as in the following examples of τίθημι: G

ἔθηκαν εἰς μνημεῖον (Acts 13:29) They placed [Jesus] into a tomb.

G L ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείω (Mark 15:46) He placed him in a tomb.

Feature descriptions note a change in functionality of the Goal to a Locative, G L, after the perspective description: τίθημι

τίθημι

3. The Feature Model of Possible Usages of Transference The discussion of features indicates that the conceptualizations of transference grammaticalized by a given verb maintain the same impetus and perspective but may diverge in subject affectedness, focus, and functionality of the Goal. This permits the formulation of a feature model that groups possible usages of transference into four sets according to their unchanging features, impetus, and perspective: Set 1 (+imp., S=A), Set 2 (–imp., S=A), Set 3 (+imp., G=A), and Set 4 (–imp., G=A). For each Set, a verb has three possible categories of subject affectedness: unaffected (act.), externally affected (mid.), and internally affected (pass.). For each category of subject affectedness within each Set, a verb has three possible combinations of focus and functionality: usages of Transference to a Goal/Terminating in a Locative with the same focus (pri. or sec.) but differing functionality of the Goal (G/G L) and a linked usage of Transference from a Source with the alternative focus (sec. or pri.). Thus, the features project the possibility of nine possible usages for each of the four Sets of usages of transference.

16

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2 4. The Eighteen Usages of Transference Realized in the New Testament

The New Testament presents 104 verbs that grammaticalize 18 of the 36 usages of transference permitted by the feature model. This discussion introduces the observed usages (eight active, three middle, and seven passive) sequentially and groups the usages in a given Set. Each usage receives a descriptive title, feature description, numerical designation, and illustrative examples from two verbs, whenever two or more verbs occur with the usage.14 The concluding discussion provides a feature model description of the observed usages by their Set. 4.1 Observed Active Usages of Transference The eight observed active usages of transference include the three active usages of Set 1 (+imp., S=A), which appear with 67 verbs. Among these, the Primary Active Usage of Transference to a Goal with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 1) appears with 58 verbs:15 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν (Matt 16:19) I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. καὶ οἴσουσιν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰς αὐτήν (Rev 21:26) They will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it.

14. Because this discussion groups usages by their Set, the proposed numerical designations for usages differ from those in Danove, Grammatical and Exegetical Study. 15. Usage 1: ἄγω, ἀναβιβάζω, ἀνάγω, ἀναδίδωμι, ἀναλαμβάνω, ἀναφέρω, ἀνταποδίδωμι, ἀντιμετρέω, ἀπάγω, ἀποδίδωμι, ἀποκαθίστημι, ἀποφέρω, ἁρπάζω, βυθίζω, δανίζω, διαδίδωμι, διαιρέω, διασκορπίζω, διασῴζω, δίδωμι, ἐγκρύπτω, εἰσφέρω, ἐκφέρω, ἕλκω, ἐμβάπτω, ἐμβιβάζω, ἐξωθέω, ἐπάγω, ἐπιβιβάζω, ἐπιδίδωμι, ἐπισυνάγω, ἐπιτίθημι, ἐπιχορηγέω, καθίημι, κατάγω, κατασύρω, κατευθύνω, κίχρημι, μετάγω, μεταδίδωμι, μετατίθημι, μετοικίζω, παραδίδωμι, παραλαμβάνω, παρατίθημι, προάγω, προδίδωμι, προάγω, προστίθημι, προσφέρω, σκορπίζω, συνάγω, σύρω, τίθημι, φέρω, χαλάω, and χορηγέω.

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

17

The Primary Active Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 2) appears with 18 verbs:16 ἔθηκεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ (Matt 27:60) He placed it in his new tomb. τοῦτον ὁ θεὸς ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα ὕψωσεν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ (Acts 5:31) God lifted him up as leader and savior [terminating] at his right.

The Secondary Active Usage of Transference from a Source with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 3) appears with 12 verbs:17 οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου (John 10:28) No one will snatch them out of my hand. μετὰ βραχίονος ὑψηλοῦ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐξ αὐτῆς (Acts 13:17) With a raised arm he brought them out of it (Egypt).

The three active usages of Set 2 appear with 19 verbs. Among these, the Primary Active Usage of Transference to a Goal with a Discrete Impetus (Usage 4) appears with 16 verbs:18 οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς (Mark 2:22) No one puts new wine into old wineskins. ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα αὐτοῦ (Matt 20:2) He sent them into his vineyard.

The Primary Active Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative with a Discrete Impetus (Usage 5) appears with five verbs:19 16. Usage 2: ἁρπάζω, διασκορπίζω, δίδωμι, ἐμβάπτω, ἐπιτίθημι, κατάγω, καταχέω, κεράννυμι, ὁδηγέω, παραδίδωμι, προάγω, προστίθημι, προσφέρω, συνάγω, σωρεύω, τίθημι, ὑψόω, and φυτεύω. 17. Usage 3: ἀνάγω, ἀναλαμβάνω, ἀπελαύνω, ἁρπάζω, ἐξάγω, ἐξωθέω, ἐπισυνάγω, καθίημι, μετακινέω, παραλαμβάνω, προφέρω, and ὑψόω. 18. Usage 4: ἀναπέμπω, ἀπολύω, ἀποστέλλω, βάλλω, διαβάλλω, ἐκβάλλω, ἐκπέμπω, ἐμβάλλω, ἐξαποστέλλω, ἐπιβάλλω, ἐπιρίπτω, ἐπισπείρω, πέμπω, προπέμπω, ῥίπτω, and σπείρω. 19. Usage 5: ἀποστέλλω, βάλλω, ἐξαποστέλλω, πέμπω, and σπείρω.

18

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2 οὐχὶ καλὸν σπέρμα ἔσπειρας ἐν τῷ σῷ ἀγρῷ (Matt 13:27) Did you not sow good seed in your field? ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους (Luke 11:49) I will send among them prophets and apostles.

The Secondary Active Usage of Transference from a Source with a Discrete Impetus (Usage 6) appears with five verbs:20 ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει ἀγαθά (Matt 12:35) The good human being takes out good things from good treasure. μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου (Rev 3:16) I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Two of the predicted usages for Set 3 appear with ten verbs. The Primary Active Usage of Transference from a Source with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 7) appears with eight verbs:21 ἄρατε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὴν μνᾶν (Luke 19:24) [You] take from him the mina! οὐδὲ ἐκ βάτου σταφυλὴν τρυγῶσιν (Luke 6:44) Nor do they gather grapes from a thorn-bush.

The Secondary Active Usage of Transference to a Goal with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 8) appears with three verbs:22 ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς (Matt 11:29) [You] take my yoke upon you! ἐπάραντες τὸν ἀρτέμωνα τῇ πνεούσῃ… (Acts 27:40) Lifting up the mainsail into the wind…

20. Usage 6: ἀποστέλλω, βάλλω, ἐκβάλλω, ἐμέω, and θερίζω. 21. Usage 7: αἴρω, ἀνασπάω, ἀπαίρω, ἀφαιρέω, ἐξαίρω, παραφέρω, συλλέγω, and τρυγάω. 22. Usage 8: αἴρω, ἀποσπάω, and ἐπαίρω.

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

19

4.2 Observed Middle Usages of Transference The three observed middle usages of transference include two usages of Set 1 (+imp., S=A), which appear with 11 verbs. The Primary Middle Usage of Transference to a Goal with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 9) occurs with all 11 verbs.23 Since English presents no direct means for signaling external affectedness, the translations of verbs with middle usages introduce “with affect” in square brackets, after the first verbal complement: θέσθε ὑμεῖς εἰς τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τοὺς λόγους τούτους (Luke 9:44) You [with affect] place these words into your ears. ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (Phil 2:9) He gave to him a name above every name.

The Primary Middle Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 10) appears only with τίθημι: ἔθεντο αὐτοὺς ἐν τηρήσει δημοσίᾳ (Acts 5:18) They [with affect] placed them in public custody.

One middle usage of Set 3 (+imp., G=A), the Primary Middle Usage of Transference from a Source with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 11), occurs with three verbs:24 ἐξείλατο αὐτὸν ἐκ πασῶν τῶν θλίψεων αὐτοῦ (Acts 7:10) He [with affect] rescued him from all his tribulations. τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς (Matt 5:42) Do not turn away the one wishing [with affect] to borrow [something] from you.

23. Usage 9: ἀνατίθεμαι, ἀποδίδωμι, ἁρμόζομαι, δωρέομαι, ἐκδίδομαι, ἐπιτίθημι, παρατίθημι, προσανατίθεμαι, τίθημι, ὑποτίθημι, and χαρίζομαι. 24. Usage 11: ἀφαιρέω, δανίζω, and ἐξαιρέω. Note that the change in perspective motivated by an intruding grammatical principle (above) introduces δανίζω, a verb in Set 1 with active usages, into this usage otherwise populated by verbs of Set 3.

20

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

4.3 Observed Passive Usages of Transference The seven observed passive usages of transference include the three usages of Set 1 (+imp., S=A), which appear with 14 verbs. Among these, the Primary Passive Usage of Transference to a Goal with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 12) appears with 12 verbs.25 The English translations of verbs with occurrences that admit to interpretation with a passive usage introduce a reflexive pronoun in the position of the second complement (Theme): ὡς υἱοῖς ὑμῖν προσφέρεται ὁ θεός (Heb 12:7) God is presenting himself to you as to children. οὕτως ἐγένετο πάντας διασωθῆναι ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (Acts 27:44) In this way it happened that all brought themselves safely onto the land.

The Primary Passive Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 13) occurs with three verbs:26 ἐκριζώθητι καὶ φυτεύθητι ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ (Luke 17:6) Uproot yourself and plant yourself in the sea. συναχθήσονται ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 25:32) All the nations will gather themselves before him.

The Secondary Passive Usage of Transference from a Source with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 14) occurs with three verbs:27 πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος ὃν διασωθέντα ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης ἡ δίκη ζῆν οὐκ εἴασεν (Acts 28:4) Surely this human being is a murderer, whom justice does not permit to live [despite] bringing himself safely from the sea. ἀνήχθη ἀπὸ τῆς Ἐφέσου (Acts 18:21) He brought himself [by sea] from Ephesus. 25. Usage 12: ἀνάγω, ἀναλαμβάνω, διασπείρω, διασῴζω, κατάγω, παραδίδωμι, προστίθημι, προσφέρω, σκορπίζω, συνάγω, ὑψόω, and φέρω. 26. Usage 13: ἐπισυνάγω, συνάγω, and φυτεύω. 27. Usage 14: ἀνάγω, διασῴζω, and φέρω.

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

21

Two of the three possible passive usages of Set 2 (–imp., S=A) appear with two verbs. Among these, the Primary Passive Usage of Transference to a Goal with a Discrete Impetus (Usage 15) appears only with ῥίπτω: λυσιτελεῖ αὐτῷ εἰ…ἔρριπται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν (Luke 17:2) It would be better for him if…he cast himself down into the sea.

The Primary Passive Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative with a Discrete Impetus (Usage 16) appears only with βάλλω: Λάζαρος ἐβέβλητο πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα αὐτοῦ... (Luke 16:20) Lazarus had cast himself at his gate.

Two of the three possible passive usages of Set 3 (+imp., G=A) appear with two verbs. Among these, the Primary Passive Usage of Transference from a Source with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 17) appears only with ἀποσπάω: αὐτὸς ἀπεσπάσθη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὡσεὶ λίθου βολὴν (Luke 22:41) He withdrew himself from them about a stone’s throw.

The Secondary Passive Usage of Transference to a Goal with a Continuous Impetus (Usage 18) occurs only with ἐπαίρω: ἀνέχεσθε γὰρ…εἴ τις ἐπαίρεται… (2 Cor 11:20) For you put up with it…if someone raises himself up….

4.4 Table of the Observed Usages of Transference The following table groups the observed usages in a Set according to their five features, which receive notation in the usual manner. Since the usages of each Set have the same impetus (+imp. or –imp.) and perspective (S=A or G=A), these features appear at the far left. To the right of these appear affectedness (act. or mid. or pass.), focus (pri. or sec.), and functionality of the Goal (— when there is no change or G L). The usage number appears after the sign at the far right:

22

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2 Impetus Perspect. Affected.

Focus Function ➔ Usage

-

Set 1 +imp. +imp. +imp. +imp. +imp +imp. +imp. +imp.

S=A S=A S=A S=A S=A S=A S=A S=A

act. act. act. mid. mid. pass. pass. pass.

pri. pri. sec. pri. pri. pri. pri. sec.

— G L — — G L — G L —

Set 2 –imp. –imp. –imp. –imp. –imp.

S=A S=A S=A S=A S=A

act. act. act. pass. pass.

pri. pri. sec. pri. pri.

— G L — — G L

➔ ➔ ➔

Set 3 +imp. +imp. +imp. +imp. +imp.

G=A G=A G=A G=A G=A

act. act. mid. pass. pass.

pri. sec. pri. pri. sec.

— — — — —

➔

➔

➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔ ➔

➔ ➔

➔

➔ ➔ ➔

1 2 3 9 10 12 13 14 4 5 6 15 16 7 8 11 17 18

5. The 18 Usages of Transference Not Realized in the New Testament Although the feature model predicts 36 possible usages of transference, the New Testament realizes only 18 of these. This discussion resolves the 18 predicted but unrealized usages into three groups according to the explanation for their absence. The three groups of unrealized usages include the nine usages of Set 4, the six usages from Sets 1, 2, and 3 (excluding the three middle usages of Set 2), and the three middle usages of Set 2. 5.1 The Nine Unrealized Usages of Set 4: A Logical Explanation Nine of the 18 unrealized usages are the three active, three middle, and three passive usages found in Set 4. With these usages, the conceptualization of transference has the Agent codirectional with the Goal (G=A) and applies only a discrete initial impetus (–imp.) to the Theme. This describes an act of jerking, usually by means of a tether or lever. English examples include “back-casting” in fly fishing, “flicking” or “jerking”

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

23

something toward oneself, or “prizing” something with a lever. As in English, the occurrence of such usages in Greek is exceedingly rare and appears only with verbs such as μοχλεύω (prize up) and ὀχλίζω (move by a lever), neither of which appear in the New Testament. Given the nature and rarity of the action, it is not surprising that the New Testament presents no appropriate context for their introduction. These usages also are absent from the LXX. 5.2 The Six Unrealized Usages of Sets 1, 2, and 3: A Distributional Explanation The absence of six of the remaining nine unrealized usages has a distributional explanation. Since only the active usages have extensive occurrence, the distributional considerations compare the occurrences of realized and unrealized usages to their nearest active counterparts. The Secondary Active Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative with a Continuous Impetus of Set 3 remains unrealized in the New Testament. Set 1 provides the closest basis of comparison because Sets 3 and 1 differ only in perspective (G=A/S=A), whereas Sets 3 and 2 differ in both perspective (S=A/G=A) and impetus (–imp./+imp.). The ratio of the occurrences of the Locative to the Goal usages of Set 1 is 0.113 (93/822). Since the parallel Goal usage appears on only six occasions, a comparable ratio of Locative to Goal usages of Set 3 would yield an expectation for 0.679 (6 x 0.113), or less than one New Testament occurrence of the Locative usage of Set 3. This Locative usage does appear in the much larger corpus of the LXX on 10 occasions with αἴρω:28 τὰς δὲ θυγατέρας σου ἐπ᾽ ὤμων ἀροῦσιν (Isa 49:22) They will take up your daughters on [their] shoulders.

28. Active Locative usage of Set 3 in the LXX: αἴρω (10) — Gen 40:16; Josh 4:5; 2 Kgs 14:20; 2 Chr 35:3; Isa 46:7; 49:22; 60:4b; 66:12; Jer 28:12; Ezek 12:12.

24

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

For the unrealized Secondary Middle Usage of Transference from a Source with a Continuous Impetus of Set 1, the ratio of active Source to Goal usages of Set 1 is 0.045 (37/822). The middle Goal usage of Set 1 appears on 37 occasions, which yields an expectation for 1.71 (37 x 0.045) New Testament occurrences of the middle Source usage. This is the first of two unrealized usages with an expectation of at least one New Testament occurrence that is not met. This usage occurs once in the LXX with ἀποφέρω: ὁ γοῦν Ἀντίοχος ὀκτακόσια πρὸς τοῖς χιλίοις ἀπενεγκάμενος ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τάλαντα θᾶττον εἰς τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν ἐχωρίσθη (2 Macc 5:21) So Antiochus [with affect] bringing away eighteen-hundred talents from the Temple quickly departed to Antioch.

For the unrealized Secondary Middle Usage of Transference to a Goal with a Continuous Impetus , the ratio of active Source to Goal usages of Set 3 is 0.118 (6/51). The middle Source usage of Set 3 appears on nine occasions, which yields an expectation of 1.06 (9 x 0.118) New Testament occurrences. This is the second of two unrealized usages with an expectation of at least one New Testament occurrence that is not met. This usage appears in the LXX on six occasions with ἐπαίρω:29 τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα ὡς ἐπήρατο χεῖρας ἐπὶ βασιλέα (1 Kgs 11:27) This is the deed when he raised his hand against the king.

As with its active counterpart, the Secondary Middle Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative with a Continuous Impetus does not appear in the New Testament. The previously noted ratio for active Goal to Locative is 0.113; and the middle Goal usage has an expectation of only 1.06 occurrences. This yields an expectation of only 0.107 (0.113/1.06) New Testament occurrences. This usage also is absent from the LXX.

29. Middle Goal usage of Set 3 in the LXX: ἐπαίρω (6) — 1 Kgs 11:27; 12:24b; Ezra 4:19; 1 Macc 8:5; 10:70; 2 Macc 7:34.

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference

25

For the unrealized Secondary Passive Usage of Transference from a Source with a Discrete Impetus , the ratio of active Goal to Source occurrences of Set 2 is 0.132 (44/333). The Passive Usage of Transference to a Goal in Set 2 occurs only once, which yields an expectation of only 0.132 New Testament occurrences. This usage also is absent from the LXX. Like its active and middle counterparts, the Secondary Passive Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative with a Continuous Impetus is unrealized in the New Testament. As previously noted, the ratio of active Goal to Locative usages is 0.113; and the passive Goal usage has only three occurrences. This yields an expectation of 0.339 New Testament occurrences. This usage is absent from the LXX. These considerations indicate that four of the six predicted but unrealized usages have an expectation of less than one occurrence in the New Testament, and that the two remaining unrealized usages have an expectation of only one occurrence. Thus their absence does not pose a serious challenge to the feature model. Multiple LXX occurrences of the two unrealized New Testament usages with the expectation of 1.18 and 0.741 occurrences also indicate the general adequacy of the discussion’s reliance on distributional ratios. 5.3 The Three Unrealized Middle Usages of Set 2: The Interpretation of Middle Voice The absence of the middle usages of Set 2 has no distributional explanation. The ratio of middle to active usages of Set 1 is 0.047 (45/952); and the ratio of middle to active usages of Set 3 is 0.158 (9/57). These ratios would recommend for Set 2, which has 407 active New Testament occurrences, between 19 (0.047 x 407) and 65 (0.158 x 407) middle occurrences. Equally striking is the presence of only one occurrence of a middle usage of Set 2 in the corpus of the LXX: ἐπεβάλοντο χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν (Josh 7:6) They [with affect] put dust on their heads.

26

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

The capacity of the feature model to predict and describe all observed usages of transference in the New Testament (and LXX) and the success of the logical arguments and distributional ratios to explain the other predicted but unrealized usages recommends ascribing the absence of the three middle usages of Set 2 in the New Testament to an intruding grammatical principle. The most likely candidate would be an inherent characteristic of the conceptualization of external affectedness (mid.) that is incompatible with a discrete impetus (–imp.). That is, the absence of these usages from the New Testament and the singular exception in the LXX recommend the interpretation that the conceptualization of external affectedness, in general, requires that the impetus of the Agent be continuous (+imp.). Conclusion This article developed five features of the conceptualization of transference that identify 36 possible usages of transference that may be grouped into four Sets. The discussion then demonstrated that all New Testament occurrences of verbs of transference resolve into 18 of the possible 36 usages. Although developed only by implication, the LXX occurrences of these verbs also were shown to resolve into 21 of the same 36 usages. The discussion identified logical (the nine usages of Set 4) and distributional (six usages of Sets 1, 2, and 3) considerations that account for the absence of possible but unobserved usages, and proposed a semantic principle (three middle usages of Set 2) that accounts for the remaining unobserved New Testament usages.

DANOVE Conceptualization of Transference Bibliography Aland, Barbara et al., eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Allan, Rutger J. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. ASCP 11. Amsterdam: Gieben, 2003. Allerton, David J. Valency and the English Verb. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Bakker, Egbert J. “Voice, Aspect, and Aktionsart: Middle and Passive in Ancient Greek.” In Voice: Form and Function, edited by B. Fox and P.J. Hopper, 23–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1994. Danove, Paul L. “Christological Implications of the Three-fold Interpretation of Verbs of Transference.” Filología Neotestamentaria 21 (2008) 27–43. ———. A Grammatical and Exegetical Study of New Testament Verbs of Transference: A Case Frame Guide to Interpretation and Translation. LNTS 391. SNTG 13. London: T. & T. Clark, 2009. ———. Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon. JSNTSup 218. SNTG 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. ———. “Verbs of Transference and Their Derivatives of Motion and State in the New Testament: A Study of Focus and Perspective.” Filología Neotestamentaria 19 (2006) 53–71. Fraser, Bruce, and John R. Ross. “Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion.” Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970) 264–65. Goddard, Cliff. Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Jackendoff, Ray S. “The Proper Treatment of Measuring Out, Telicity, and Perhaps Even Quantification in English.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11 (1996) 305–54. Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Matthews, Peter. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

27

28

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2 Mittwoch, Anita. “Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion,” Linguistic Inquiry 2 (1971) 255–59. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Rijksbaron, Albert. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Gieben, 2002. Saeed, John I. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Sag, Ivan, and Jorge Hankamer. “Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing.” Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984) 325–45.

[BAGL 2 (2013) 29–74]

DIMINUTIVE SUFFIXES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT: A CROSS-LINGUISTIC STUDY Jonathan M. Watt Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA, USA Abstract: Diminuted word forms in the Greek New Testament have much in common with their counterparts in other languages, and typically convey smallness, slightness, affection, or derogation. In some cases their meanings are “faded” or “bleached” and do not convey anything different from the base form of the word, as happens also in other languages. Diminutive usage can express solidarity and common values in certain speech communities, and may be doing so in some New Testament passages. (Article) Keywords: diminutives, affixation, sociolinguistics, theory of language.

1. Introduction to Diminutive Affixation Diminutive word forms occur throughout the world’s languages, more often in oral than written communication, and typically convey smallness, slightness, affection, and even derogation. Diminution can be accomplished by means of an auxiliary word (e.g., the English adjectives “wee” and “tiny”), by suffixation (e.g., -ie/-y suffixes on names and nouns in English, or the alternative noun suffix -let, as in coverlet), by prefixation (e.g., timounn “child” in Haitian Creole), by infixation (e.g., Turkish, see below), or by clipping (shortened root morpheme). Some diminutives are created through a combination of these (e.g., a clipped noun along with a suffix, as in Australian English brekkie “breakfast”), or by means of conglutination (e.g., Greek

30

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

suffixes -ar + -id + -ion, as in βιβλαρίδιον “small book/scroll”).1 This study centers on diminution via affixation. Nouns (including names) are by far the most common root to which diminutive morphemes are affixed, and suffixation that marks diminution— as with most inflection in Indo-European languages—provides “the principal machinery of derivation…and [is] responsible for most of the morphophonemic alteration of root morphemes.”2 However, while diminution may be common fare in the world’s languages, it continues to present semantic problems that are yet to be solved. Mary Haas noted some decades ago that: It is safe to say…that the notion of the diminutive is a language universal, or at any rate, a near universal… The diminutive also usually carries with it a number of affective connotations which range from endearment to tenderness through mild belittlement or depreciation to outright derogation and insult. Although this fact is fairly generally recognized, there are very few careful studies of the range of connotations in a particular language. The problem is deserving of wider attention.3

In the years since her comments, some studies have contributed significantly to filling the void. Ancient Greek diminutives have drawn their share of attention, though the two primary studies of ancient Greek are quite dated. A landmark monograph published by Walter Petersen in 1910, Greek Diminutives in –ION, centered on the Classical period, and in 1958 Donald C. Swanson published “Diminutives in the Greek New Testament.” Given the passing of a century, and half a century, respectively, revisiting the topic from within the context of world languages seems appropriate, especially since that broader landscape may contribute to understanding diminutives in the biblical texts.4 1. See Smyth, Grammar, 235, for more Classical examples. 2. Cowgill, “Search for Universals,” 134. 3. Haas, “Expression of the Diminutive,” 82. 4. The author wishes to thank Rod Decker for directing me to these two foundational sources. This present work brings together papers presented at the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics sections of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2010, 2011, and 2012. It does not delve into the related subject of diminutives in the context of baby talk and first language acquisition, though

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

31

The fact that diminutives occur in different language families attests to their productivity in the human mind, even if their specifics differ. Dressler and Barbaresi offer a sizeable cross-linguistic study of diminutives and claim that “Among all morphopragmatic devices within derivational morphology, diminutives represent the category which has the widest distribution across languages and has stimulated the greatest number of studies.”5 Much of what they cite post-dates Haas’s comments. They state: “Early grammarians often noted pragmatic conditions for the use of diminutive suffixes, particularly when they were of dialectal origin,”6 and especially when used for jocular purposes. Their study of European languages (particularly Italian, German, and English) offers five summary observations on diminutive affixes:7 1. They are derivational, not inflectional; 2. They are alterative, that is, in contrast to augmentatives which increase quantity, diminutives involve some kind of decrease; 3. They usually carry a positive connotative change; 4. They contravene general derivational morphology rules by being applicable to multiple base categories, e.g., nouns and adjectives; and 5. They evidence a preference for “iconic expression via morphological rules” (or what might be called morphophonemic restriction).

some of the discussion in that realm is quite helpful; see Savickiene and Dressler, Acquisition of Diminutives. They observe that diminutives are “acquired early because they belong to non-prototypical derivational morphology, which is easier to acquire than proto-typical derivational or inflectional morphology,” and that they serve “pragmatic functions of endearment, empathy, and sympathy, which make diminutives particularly appropriate for child-centred communication,” as they play a particular role in the development of a child’s grammar (2). That book and Morphopragmatics by Dressler and Barbaresi are among the most comprehensive studies on the subject. 5. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 85. 6. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 85–86. 7. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 91–93.

32

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

However, as Dressler and Barbaresi demonstrate extensively, each language has its particulars.8 Italian, for example, prefers to diminute nominal bases, and the change often involves a gender switch, usually from a feminine base to a masculine derivative. Diminutives in many languages are especially suited to childcentered, and even pet-directed, speech situations. Diminutives carry high emotional connotation, and are thereby useful for encoding sympathy and empathy (on 29 using the phrase “affective morphology,” which would be especially suitable if indeed “all social interaction…is emotionally colored” [32]). Consequently, diminutive constructions may convey informality, familiarity, and even intimacy. Additionally, the authors note that diminutives may facilitate euphemism and understatement and consequently may connote politeness when making a request. Dressler and Barbaresi also observe that particular social circumstances provide the conditions for a reversal of otherwise positive connotations, thereby converting descriptive smallness into irony or sarcasm.9 An example they offer is from German: Dein Freund bat mich ihm das Summ-chen von $100,000 (“Your friend asked me [to give] him the sum-DIM of $100,000”)—the request is hardly a small one. Such examples highlight the disagreement that remains as to whether diminutives should be construed as a basic semantic category (a position tacitly assumed in many modern grammars) or as a pragmatic function dependent upon speech situations, as Dressler and Barbaresi argue, adding “This book is devoted to affixes and other morphological devices whose meaning appears to be primarily located in pragmatics. These devices exhibit no stable semantic value and their meaning seems to be often elusive.”10 We shall return to the issue of situational relevance at a number of points further along.

8. 9. 10.

Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, passim. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 337–38. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 4, 1, respectively.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

33

1.1 Literal Meanings of Diminutives Languages from around the world evidence diminution. BaltoSlavic languages (such as Bulgarian, Polish and Russian) have a diverse assortment of diminutive suffixes, which typically are gender-sensitive; Celtic varieties are formed similarly. Diminutive suffixes occur throughout Indo-Iranian languages: Hindi, for example, suffixes -u to nouns and proper names, and Persian does likewise with -cheh and -ak. Dravidian languages, such as Tamil, have diminutives, as do Semitic languages: Modern Hebrew can accomplish this with reduplication (kelev “dog”  klavlav “puppy”) while Arabic diminutes via infixation (hirra “cat”  hurayrah “kitten,” inserting -u- and -ay- after the first and second root consonants, respectively). Chinese, in the SinoTibetan family, can form a name diminutive by replacing the first character (usually of two) with xiao-, which then prefixes the second character, or by addition of a -zi suffix to the second character. On the other hand, Japanese generates diminutives by means of gender-specific -chan and -kun suffixes: e.g., the girl’s name Miki  Miki-chan, while a boy’s name, Ryo, becomes Ryo-kun.11 Turkish, an Altaic language, employs the suffix -cik to mark endearment (especially with infants), but -cegiz when conveying empathy; both suffixes then undergo vowel harmony with the root morpheme. Germanic languages abound in diminutives. Dutch employs a considerable variety of suffixes (-je, -tje, -pje, -etje, and -kje, along with dialectal variants) that can be added to adjectives as well as nouns (and some Dutch words, such as sneeuwklokje [lit. “snow-clock-small”], exist only in diminutive form; this word refers to a “snowdrop” flower). German diminutives are usually marked by suffixes -chen or -lein (e.g., Haüschen “small house” and Röslein “small rose,” both of which umlaut the vowel sound 11. Examples of diminutive have been drawn from many published sources, including Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, and Savickiene and Dressler, Acquisition of Diminutives, and from personal interviews. Data taken from popular or unattributed sources have been cross-checked with informants for accuracy whenever possible.

34

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

of the root morpheme), though sometimes they use -l or -erl instead (e.g., Mädchen “girl”  colloquial Madl “cute”; we will return to this matter of lexical semantic shift in connection with diminution). Other Germanic languages, such as Swedish, Yiddish, and Frisian, similarly abound with diminutives. Romance languages also present a wealth of diminutives. French constructs feminine noun diminutives using -ette or -elle suffixes (e.g., mademoiselle  madame “woman”; fillette  fille “girl”), while masculine nouns receive -ot, -on or -ou (chiot “puppy”  chien “dog”). Italian diminutives infix -in before the word-final vowel (for masculines and feminines) while using other forms for inanimates. Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish also yield many possibilities. Latin employed case-sensitive variations with suffixes -(c)ulus, -(c)ula and -(c)ulum, along with an -ell- variety seen in words such as libellus  liber “book” and gladiolus  gladius “sword,” both of which illustrate features of clipping combined with semantic shift. It is worth noting that some languages permit multiple affixation for diminutives. For example, Polish kot (“cat”) can be diminuted to kotek (“kitty”) and then still further to koteczek (“tiny kitty”). Furthermore, Polish permits alternate diminutive suffixes on the same root word, especially with personal names (e.g., Grzegorz “Gregory”  Grzes, Grzesiek, Grzesio, Grzesiu). Or, conversely, diminution can be accomplished by clipping, with or without affixation, thereby creating alternate forms based on the same root, as English does (e.g., Katherine  Kat, Kit, Katy, Kathy, etc.). Modern languages evidence no shortage of examples. 1.2 Social Implications of Diminutives Modern language studies have given some attention to the use of diminutives for reasons other than the customary ones (smallness, endearment), and these studies open up possibilities of interpretation for the New Testament. For example, so-called “faded diminutives” in modern languages can be perceived as having little to do with literal smallness and much with the emblematic representation of shared community values. One monograph that suggests this dimension is Brown and Levinson’s

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

35

Politeness (1987). Their comments are brief and easy to miss, falling as they do under the heading of “in-group identity markers,”12 and mentioned along with formal pronouns and honorifics. The authors suggest that English can mark in-group identity by diminutives such as duckie, blondie, and cutie, and offer examples from Tzeltal and Tamil, arguing that “Diminutives and endearments…have a similar function of claiming in-group solidarity” since such forms “soften” what they call “facethreatening acts” (FTAs).13 Brown and Levinson mention use of the Tenejapa diminutive adjective Ɂala “a little” as a positive politeness technique that is part of a larger “interactional ethos,” which includes issues of “vertical and horizontal social distance.”14 They explain that a “lower” person can reduce the imposition of a request made to a more powerful person by means of minimization (see 177; they label this a “negative interactional marker”) so long as their language community already interprets this technique as emphasizing the emotional bond between interactants.15 Other modern language situations seem to confirm these observations. For example, native Dutch speakers I interviewed in North America described similar social values, as did Dutch expatriates living in Canada.16 Dutch diminutive suffixes (-je, -tje, -pje, -etje, and -kje, along with dialectal variants) can be added to nouns or adjectives, as with kindje (“small child”), autootje (“small car”), and huistje (“small house”). A small animal is not necessarily a young one: hondje identifies a “small (adult) dog” but not a puppy. Some words, such as sneeuwklokje (lit. “snow-clock-DIM”  snowdrop flower), exist only in diminutive form, while others are regionalisms, such as groentjes (“greenish”)  groen (“green”). Diminutives once used for children may prevail into adulthood: endearment (also known as 12. Brown and Levinson, Politeness, 107–10. 13. Brown and Levinson, Politeness, 95. 14. Brown and Levinson, Politeness, 251. 15. See also discussion in Sifanou, “Use of Diminutives,” 156. 16. These interviews took place across a three year period, coincident with the preparations of my original papers on this subject.

36

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

hypercoristic) labels, as in the names Paul and Juriaan  Paultje and Juurtje, like their English counterparts, often take on a life of their own with no respect to age or size. But there is still more to the Dutch picture. Popular writers Colin White and Laurie Boucke humorously describe “the compulsive-obsessive use of diminutives in daily speech” of the Dutch: “The use of diminutives is an integral part of the Dutch language and usually adds a positive and cosy [sic] feeling to what is being said.”17 They warn: “But beware because the ‘little’ factor can at times ‘belittle the bespoken’ by denoting sarcasm, irony or anger.” A Dutchman drinking pils (“beer”) at the local pub will invite a friend to join him for a pils-je, according to these authors, even though it has nothing to do with the size of the brew. The issue is friendship, a fact confirmed during an interview with PT (a Dutch engineer now residing in Ottawa, ON), who commented that he routinely requests a kopje of coffee anytime he happens to be conversing with other native Dutch speakers. “If I wanted a huge mug of coffee [he motions with exaggeration], I would ask for a kop, but any other time it is always a kop-je.” His Dutch-born wife agrees, and both agree that use of diminutives marks Dutch speakers as “kinder [and] more polite,” while laughing about their own frequent use of diminutives (“It’s just what we do”). In a separate interview, native speaker CdeB, who lives in a town just outside Rotterdam, likewise said (in translation): “Everybody does it. It’s the thing to do.” When she and her family members were asked what would happen if a Dutchman did not make frequent use of diminutives, they pointedly responded: “We would take note of him!” as they joked about their suspicion that such a person was actually German. She playfully added: “If Hitler had won the war, everything would be big.” PdeB reasoned the “necessity” of regular diminution this way: “The Netherlands is a small country, so everything we talk about is small.” Other native Dutch speakers I interviewed in the United States and Canada viewed diminution as symbolic of nationalism, and one of them offered 17.

White and Boucke, Undutchables, 214.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

37

to continue our discussion of the subject in an email-tje, spontaneously amused at his addition of the Dutch diminutive to the English word. Dressler and Barbaresi (citing Wierzbicka) suggest that certain conditions favor the use of diminutives, intimacy being one of them, because it involves a “readiness to reveal some particular aspects of one’s personality and of one’s inner world that one conceals from other people; a readiness based on personal trust and on personal ‘good feelings.’”18 This corresponds positively with statements made by the above-mentioned Dutch informants. Dressler and Barbaresi similarly claim that “in many societies, women seem to be more contact-oriented than men… [hence, they observe] the greater use of diminutives by women than by men.”19 Native Australians I interviewed in Sydney expressed sentiments similar to the Dutch regarding the use of diminutives, which occur most frequently with speakers of Broad Australian, a socio-economic rather than regional dialect.20 To foreign ears, Broad Australian is the most easily recognizable form of Australian English, even if incomprehensible, and it stands apart from “Educated-” or “British”-Australian varieties. The vernacular abounds in slang, of which diminutives are one type. The pattern usually involves shortening of the root morpheme and then suffixation of -ie or -y (e.g., breakfast  brekk + ie; television  tell + y). The Oxford Companion to the English Language identifies this “Standard Australian English” as the national variety, though many Australians perceive its working class association as something best avoided. Some informants consider themselves above the use of vernacular diminutives and have described the dialect (and these forms) as “lazy” and “uneducated” speech. Popular or not, the dialect’s distinct features 18. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 214; Wierzbicka, CrossCultural Pragmatics, 105. 19. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 413. 20. My interviews with Dutch and Australian English speakers took place on various occasions between 2009 and 2012. See Delbridge on “Standard Australian English.”

38

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

are ubiquitous,21 and as one expatriate (RV) from Melbourne put it: “It’s simply the way we talk; I never even thought about it until I moved [to America].” When I initially asked Dutch and Australian English speakers what the habitual use of diminutives meant to them, most responded with shrugs and comments along the lines of “That’s just the way it is.” When I redirected, reminding them how frequently the forms are used in daily speech in contrast to other language communities, their explanations invariably drifted toward common values. Some informants in New South Wales attributed Australian diminutives (and slang in general) to the country’s “laid back lifestyle” and to its highly valued egalitarianism. CB, a highly educated hospital administrator in Sydney, said the diminutives even she uses periodically “make us all equal.” NW, an elderly woman living in Sydney, who speaks British Australian and studiously avoids diminutives in her own speech, nevertheless affirmed that diminutives have a “democratizing effect.” Though diminutives are more typical of oral communication, they certainly appear in writing too. A comparison of the January 5, 2011 editions of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Daily Telegraph proved informative. The former, in publication nearly 175 years and circulated worldwide, uses a formal register of standard English with British spellings and the occasional idiom. One article refers to the aging population with the frozen phrase “oldies” and “goldies,” while another identifies sports star Chris Houston as “Houso” (citing direct quotation from his private 21. Winston Churchill is known to have regarded the Australian English dialect with disdain. Its diminutives take two common forms: those that add -ie to the shortened stem (e.g., Australian  Aussie; biscuit  bikkie; breakfast  brekkie; budgerigar  budgie; chocolate  chockie; football  footie; tin/can of beer  tinnie; lad/lass  laddie/lassie; mosquito  mozzie; sick day  sickie; sunglasses  sunnies; shock absorbers  shockies; truck driver truckie; university  uni; trade unionist  tradie; and those which add -o (e.g., garbage collector  garbo; Aborigine  Abo; slacker  slacko; Salvation Army personnel  Salvos; avocadoes  avos).

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

39

conversations that were recorded by the police), as he allegedly sought access to street drugs, which he referred to as “lollies” and “chippies.” But for the most part, The Sydney Morning Herald avoids these colloquialisms. The popular tabloid The Daily Telegraph, on the other hand, is not so sparing: its front page headline refers to the approaching footy (football) season, and subsequent stories highlight fireys (fire-fighters), pommies (British persons), greenies (environmentalists), unis (universities), bookies (betting agents), Guineas (horse racing currency), and even a dunny (toilet). Media personality Shane Warne is referred to as Warnie and a soccer player named Ronaldinho as Ronnie, and there are numerous appearances of the obligatory Aussie (Australian). This tabloid, unlike its international counterpart, pitches to a wide national readership using words that fall in line with Arthur Delbridge’s observation on the vernacular spectrum of antipodean English: The Australianness of Australian English is, of course, a highly variable factor. It is most obvious in spoken language, especially among speakers at the broader end of the speech spectrum. But in written language it depends more on register and subject matter: the closer one comes to the personal and social heart of Australian life the more idiomatic and indigenized is the language in use. The Australianness of Australian literature, especially in dialogue in drama and other fiction holding up the mirror to the intimacies of Australian life, is at one extreme, and close by are the columns of (especially) the week-end newspapers. There is a gradient then towards the other end, where one finds expository or business writing in prose. This is where one might expect writers to make their language choices constantly from within the limits of Standard Australian English.22

The comments I elicited from Dutch and Australian English speakers in some instances connected diminutives with politeness. Even though speakers from both language communities indicated they had previously given the matter little thought, they concluded in interviews that their use conveyed respect and group identity. Wierzbicka affirms with this picture, though rather than labeling them “diminutives” she suggests that these 22.

Delbridge, “Standard Australian English,” 268 (italics mine).

40

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2 characteristically Australian abbreviations…have a function quite different from the main function of diminutives… Formally, they differ from English diminutives because they are abbreviations…a suffix [added] to a truncated form of the base word. Semantically, they differ from diminutives in expressing, essentially, not endearment but good humor… [T]he semantic complex explicated above reflects many characteristic features of the Australian ethos: antisentimentality, jocular cynicism, a tendency to knock things down to size, “mateship,” good-natured humour, and love of informality…23

In short, Australian English diminutives play a depreciative function, often effected humorously, and according to Wierzbicka, thereby express cohesion around national values. This socially oriented dimension to some diminution also occurs in Modern Greek, and it offers a minimizing function in the service of politeness. Sifanou argues that Modern Greek’s frequent use of diminutives, along with liyo “a little,” are “elements [that] serve as markers of friendly, informal polite-ness… [T]he use of diminutives mainly serves to establish or reaffirm a solidary [sic] framework for the interaction…[and] a tendency for intimacy and informality in Greek.”24 Daltas notes the inverse correlation between frequency of diminution and formality of a situation, and correlates this with Brown and Levinson’s observation (cited above), adding that even “Adjectives having negative connotations, such as ksinos “sour,” can be diminutized as ksinutsikos “sourish”; similarly, askimos “ugly” can become askimulis “ugly-ish,” thus endearing or softening its negative force.”25 This wording would be recognized by native speakers as ways in which Greeks “express politeness either by claiming common ground and showing solidarity towards the addressee, or by showing affectionate concern for imposing on his/her freedom of action.”26 Native Cypriot KS, in an interview with me, says she has watched for years as “everything” now seems to be diminuted in her native country. She commented that even 23. 24. 25. 26.

Wierzbicka, “Different Cultures,” 169–70. Sifanou, “Use of Diminutives,” 155. Daltas, “Patterns of Variability,” 63, 159. Daltas, “Patterns of Variability,” 159.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

41

personal names are actually being replaced by the suffix that was originally appended to their name: e.g., Kalliope  Kalliopitsa  Pitsa, and Xenophon  Xenakis  Akis. KS suggests that, for many Cypriots, diminution has come to signify “genuine Greekness.” Something similar shows up in Polish diminutives, as discussed by Wierzbicka, who argues that, “In Polish, warm hospitality is expressed as much by the use of diminutives as it is by the ‘hectoring’ style of offers and suggestions,”27 and that these can be used in combination, as in this example: Wez jeszcze sledzika! Koniesznie! “Take some more dear-little-herring. You must!”

She explains that The diminutive praises the quality of the food and minimizes the quantity pushed onto the guest’s plate. The speaker insinuates: “don’t resist! it [sic] is a small thing I’m asking you to do—and a good thing!” … The diminutive and the imperative work hand in hand in the cordial, solicitous attempt to get the guest to eat more… [A] request that is formulated in the imperative mood would often be softened by means of the diminutive. Thus, while it would be more natural for a wife to use an imperative than an interrogative-cum-conditional request when speaking to her husband, she would be likely to soften that imperative by a double diminutive form of his name (as well as by the intonation).28

Among her examples is this sentence, with its complex diminution indicating politeness in connection with a request: Jureczku, daj mi papierosa! George-Dim.-Dim., give me a cigarette!

Wierzbicka elsewhere states: “We are so used to traditional labels such as ‘diminutive’…that we tend to forget their arbitrary character and to mistake them for genuine statements of meaning.”29 The same might have been said of ancient Middle 27. 28. 29.

Wierzbicka, “Different Cultures,” 167. Wierzbicka, “Different Cultures,” 167. Wierzbicka, “Diminutives and Depreciatives,” 130.

42

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

Easterners as well, for readers of Jewish biblical narratives can recognize in, for example, Gen 18:4, 5, that Abraham extends hospitality to mysterious visitors by offering “a little water” and “a piece of bread.” Likewise, a second-language Spanish speaker commented to me on the frequent use of diminutives she hears in Puerto Rican Spanish, especially when people address or refer to children: in her opinion, it is evidence of the culture’s high regard for children. And a native Japanese informant reported to me that diminutive o- prefix in his native language (e.g., o-kashi “snack(s),” o-kane “money,” o-namae “name”) is used to mark politeness (though he notes that not all o- constructions are diminutive). These anecdotal perceptions of diminutive meanings appear to support the idea that patterned usage is associated with community values in the minds of native speakers. The plethora of diminutive data, then, bends not under the strain of morphological variety or regularity but under the burden of meaning. Savickiene and Dressler discuss the “subjectivity of diminutives” due to the fact that they “indicate the speaker’s fictive approach, that is, his transition from the real world to an imaginary world.”30 Determining what constitutes a “real” diminutive can be difficult because the subject suffers the proverbial form-function dilemma that haunts many paradigms and typologies. It appears that certain Lithuanian “diminutives” actually function as augmentatives (amplificatives), and in English, diminutive-like formations such as flaky, pasty and dodgy are in fact adjectival. Similarly, Greek ἱμάτιον “garment/ cloak,” among other words appearing to have a diminutive suffix, in fact does not. The survey provided thus far permits a preliminary working list of meanings for diminutive forms in various languages, even if qualifications need to be offered later. We can say that diminutives can do the following.

30. Savickiene and Dressler, Acquisition of Diminutives, 156, 154, respectively.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

43

a. Convey Physical Smallness in Contrast to Something Larger Small size appears in the Scottish English word bairn-ag (“childsmall”) and wif-ockie (“small woman”); also, Dutch kindje (“small child”), autootje (“small car”), huistje (“small house”). Hondje identifies a “small (adult) dog.” b. Demonstrate Like Quality Examples that convey a quality of one thing that is found in another include Dutch groen (“green”)  groentjes (“greenish”) (regionalism); this shift in meaning also occurs in Scottish Gaelic bodach (“old man”) with -an suffix, which comes to mean “manikin,” and Czech stul (“table”) with -ek suffix coming to mean “stair/step” (stolek). Clearly, “diminution” may involve factors other than smallness—a manikin can be life-size, and certain stairs are larger than some tables—qualities of human shape and of flatness, rather than size, are at issue in these examples, respectively. Sometimes the quality is, however, of a lesser degree, as in Italian alt-ino (“less high”), lungh-etto (“less long”), and vin-ello (“weakish wine”, i.e., less alcohol than other wines). c. Convey Affection, Endearment, Intimacy (Hypercoristic use) Hypercoristic diminutives occur in many languages, seen for example in Dutch names (e.g., Paul and Juriaan  Paultje and Juurtje) as well as English, as in the case of a cousin of this writer who is still referred to in the family as “Wee Johnny” even as he approaches retirement. Dutch friends can visit with each other for uurtje gezellig (“a little hour”) or take een straatje om (“a little stroll [lit. ‘street’]”) through town together, regardless of the length of time taken. The diminutive points to the friendship, not the duration of the walk. d. Demean (derogation) Derogation is conveyed when a diminutive form is created from prominence or magnificence, e.g., when the fourth-century Western Roman emperor was referred to as “Romulus Augustulus” (i.e., “little Augustus”), or the former British Prime Minister is labeled “Maggie Thatcher,” or a deviant jetsetter is headlined as “that poor little rich kid.” The dissonance creates the disrespect.

44

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

Similar disdain occurs in Italian Vai come una lumach-ina (“You walk like [are as slow as] a baby-snail”).31 e. To Generate Reference to Something Else Diminution that results in semantic difference occurs, for example, in Scots English: kilt-ie, literally “small kilt” but designating the soldier who wears the garment; Persian mard (“man”) with -ak suffix creates demonstrative force, as in mardak, “this fellow” rather than some other; and Dutch broodje (brood “bread”) specifically designating a “(dinner) roll,” not a small loaf of bread. Additionally, diminutives in some settings appear to convey shared values, solidarity, and politeness, at least for some speech communities. Now, we consider how these observations compare with the diminutives of the New Testament. 2. Overview of New Testament Greek Diminutives There are 33 different diminutive forms appearing in the New Testament (34, if one includes the πινακιδίον/πινακίς variant in Luke 1:63; see Appendix, which is based on Swanson), with 27 of them appearing in the Gospels. The most common in the Gospels are παιδίον (49x), ἀρνίον (25x), παιδίσκη (13x), νεανίσκος (11x), τεκνίον (8x) and πλοιάριον (6x). All but six of the lexical forms underlying the diminuted variation also appear somewhere in the New Testament; those which appear in the New Testament only in a diminuted form are: στρουθίον, σχοινίον, ψιχίον, ψωμίον, ὀψαρίον, and κοράσιον. They appear to align under three categories: animals, people, and familiar objects (e.g., ear,

31. This Italian example appears in Savickiene and Dressler, Acquisition of Diminutives, 132, where they propose (116–18) that diminutives be arranged under three headings: morphosemantic denotation (general literal meanings), morphosemantic connotation (e.g., including irony and sarcasm), and morphopragmatic (in which meaning is attached specifically to a certain speech act or situation).

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

45

island)32 prevalent in the daily life of many communities. Among the Gospels, Mark has the highest frequency of diminutives, as both Swanson and Turner observed independently, the latter adding that “we can detect a tendency [in Mark] towards the vernacular,” including the use of faded diminutives.33 Diminutives that occur outside the Gospels include ἀρνίον (28x in Rev), νησίον (Acts 27:16), παιδίον (7x in epistles), τεκνίον (8x in epistles), γυναικάριον (2 Tim 3:6), βιβλαρίδιον (4x in Rev), νεανίσκος (6x in Acts and 1 John), παιδίσκη (7x in Acts and Gal), θύρις (Acts 20:9; 2 Cor 11:33) and κεφαλίς (Heb 10:7). If we factor out the frequent use of ἀρνίον in the Apocalypse, vocative use of τεκνίον in some epistles, and citations based on the LXX (e.g., παιδίσκη in Galatians 4), the frequency of diminutives outside the Gospels plummets to a mere handful of the 181 total New Testament appearances. Swanson contrasts the New Testament as a whole with the Septuagint, noting that the entire LXX has just 74 different diminutives, i.e., little more than double the New Testament despite the considerable difference in text length. Even earlier Greek writers such as Euripides, Aristophanes, Polybius and Herondas did not rival the New Testament in diminutive frequencies.34 Swanson says: “The inevitable conclusion (based on this evidence) is that, contrary to the dogma, the New Testament has more diminutives…than the comparable texts of the period.”35 The impression is that the daily life of common people provided many opportunities to employ these forms, and that the Gospel writers in particular appear quite willing to retain them. Many of these words were used to convey smallness, but other meanings begin to appear as well. Swanson’s work tends to agree with Petersen, whose expansive survey of Classical literature devotes

32. The numbers provided in this paragraph, drawn from Swanson, correlate with my own word counts. 33. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 143; see also Turner, Grammar, 28. 34. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 148–50. 35. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 150–51.

46

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

chs. 4–13 to nouns “in -ion which have no diminutive meaning.”36 Yet Petersen suggests that The use of -ion [in Classical Greek] to express similarity was the one [denotation] that gave rise to the diminutive meaning… After the diminutive meaning, however, had become well established, new words…could be formed with the idea of small size uppermost, and old ones could be reinterpreted as diminutives, or at any rate the diminutive idea could be combined with the notion of similarity…the diminutive, like the deteriorative…use of -ion, is derived from its function of designating “something like, but not the same” as the primitive.37

In other words, Petersen concludes that the association of diminutive forms with smallness was just one purpose located within a broader semantic range—a quite different understanding from much of the current literature. Moulton and Howard were inclined the same way.38 Nevertheless, the categories listed above line up roughly with Petersen’s: physical smallness (a) equals his ch. 15; conveying a quality of one thing found in another (b) is his chs. 9, 10, 12, 13; hypercoristic (c) is his ch. 16; and derogation (d) appears in his ch. 14, being identified there as “deteriorative” meaning. Semantic shift (e) examples can be drawn from different parts of Petersen, and overlap with what are his “faded” diminutives. As Swanson frames the problem: when does παιδίον cease to mean “little boy” and become simply “boy”?39 (Swanson reduces Petersen’s arrangement to a fourpart classification that includes deteriorative, endearing, physical smallness, and a combined category of true and faded meanings.)40 Swanson regrets that, even when the literature scope is narrowed to the New Testament, “Drawing up a list of diminutives…is not a simple procedure,” because like form does not always entail like meaning (e.g., -ις and -ιδ- can identify tools) 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

Swanson, “Diminutives,” 135. Petersen, Greek Diminutives, 101–102, 132. Moulton and Howard, Grammar, 344–45. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 135. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 146.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

47

and less common forms (e.g., -ισκος/-ισκε/-ισκον) may also convey diminutive meaning. He organizes the 33(34) true New Testament diminutives (see Appendix) with endings in -ιον, -αριον, -ιδιον, -αριδιον, -ασιον, -ισκος, -ισκε and -ις, distinguishing them from words of like form that he labels “non-diminutives” which, in some cases, betray the larger semantic picture of similarity that Petersen had kept on the table (e.g., πρεσβυτέριον “council of elders” obviously related by quality to πρεσβύτερος “elder”). Differing from Turner, Swanson points out that σανδάλιον ( σανδάλον; see Mark 6:9) probably had nothing to do with size in that context, and that ποίμνιον (“flock,” Luke 12:32) had never been diminutive, and observes that New Testament diminutives mostly pertain to three things: people, animals, and tangible objects.41 His list and the cross-linguistic summary given above align, each suggesting that diminution may convey: Smallness (e.g., νησίον [“small island”] — Acts 27:16; κλινάριον [“cots”] — Acts 5:15); Quality alternation of some kind (e.g., σχοινίον [“slender rope”] — John 2:15; Acts 27:32); Endearment/hypercoristic (e.g., τεκνίον [“child”] — 1 John 2:21, incl. vocatives, e.g., Gal 4:19); Derogation/deteriorative (e.g., γυναικάριον [“weak/foolish women”] — 2 Tim 3:6); or Change of reference to something else (e.g., θύρα [“door”]  θύρις [“window”] — Acts 20:9; 2 Cor 11:33).42

And last, it appears that some instances of diminution mark common values and politeness. What is striking about the New Testament data, with its 33(34) different words and 181 total appearances, is that virtually all occur in the Gospels. Factoring out the extensive use of ἀρνίον in the Apocalypse, vocative use of τεκνίον in various epistles, and materials that cite or interact with the Septuagint (e.g., five appearance of παιδίσκη in Galatians 4), the appearance of diminutives plummets to a mere handful in the 41. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 141, 147, respectively. 42. Contrast this odd statement in BDF 70: “Diminutives are not frequent in the New Testament because they are not suited to a language even slightly elevated.”

48

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

New Testament literature outside the Gospels. Even if these other uses are included in the tally, Swanson is able to demonstrate that, in proportion to text length, the Gospels have more than two-and-one-half times more diminutives than all the remaining New Testament literature.43 Narratives (and apocalyptic) that are anchored in Jewish Palestinian settings and presumably drawn from reports by local participants in the events show a markedly higher frequency of diminutives than materials intended for a more geographically diverse readership across the Roman world, such as the epistles. Turner is thinking along these lines when he writes, “we can detect a tendency [in Mark] towards the vernacular, that he uses some diminutive words which bear no diminutive force,”44 but that fact alone arises in other literature (and speech) as well, and he offers no examples to support the claim. More concretely, however, Swanson calculates that, among the Gospels, Mark has the highest frequency of diminutives relative to length of text.45 Pauline literature, on the other hand, shows the lowest frequency (and this writer notes that, if we discount influence from Old Testament materials and pastoral vocatives, Pauline usage almost drops right off completely, with only three remaining diminutives: 1 Cor 14:20; 2 Cor 11:33; 2 Tim 3:6. Despite this unevenness, Swanson argues “contrary to the dogma,” which alleges that the New Testament has few diminutives, providing evidence that in fact their overall frequency is more than double that of the LXX or Polybius.46 Swanson has offered for New Testament studies a helpful simplification of the comprehensive taxonomy Petersen had compiled for the Classical materials. However, with additional attention to environments, i.e., of the original settings and with reference to other languages, a symbiotic picture emerges. Meanings of diminutive suffixes in the New Testament generally coincide with the 43. 44. 45. 46.

Swanson, “Diminutives,” 142–43. Turner, Grammar, 28. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 143. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 150.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

49

diversity of their counterparts in modern languages, and some convey social rather than literal or metaphoric implications. 3. Interpretation of Diminutives It has been shown that diminutives of the Greek New Testament function “as expected” when compared with modern languages. However, as Haas notes, more studies are needed on their range of connotation, for one does not have to look hard to find examples of the problems they pose.47 The English diminutive suffix -y/-ie, for example, can express literal smallness (puppy, kitty) or insult or derogation (Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher), or even in-group conversation (tradie, see below)—all in the same time period of a single speech community. The key to determining the appropriate nuance must be located outside the morphology and somewhere in the living context (and in the minds of both speaker and hearer). Since the primary studies of Greek diminutives to date have been conducted from a morphosemantic approach, the effect has been the sidelining of analyses sensitive to contextual influences, and work remains to be done on their possible relational implications, particularly (it seems) in the Gospel narratives. The lack of direct access to living speakers and situations in the New Testament is problematic, since morphopragmatics and sociolinguistics thrive on sensitivity to the vicissitudes of social environment. However, to pretend that this dimension does not exist would be to simplify the challenge of translation at the cost of consideration of what is demonstrably a factor in language usage, namely, the particulars of human relationships. Porter sees this: The task for a “purely epigraphic language”…such as ancient Greek is made more difficult because there are no native speakers to give opinions on the use of their language, the corpus of available material is limited, a skewing of registers (the oral level is completely missing) results, and the social context is difficult to recover. These factors, however, rather than causing despair should make more

47.

Haas, “Expression of the Diminutive,” 82.

50

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2 pressing the need to reevaluate constantly the interpretive models employed and to rely more heavily upon formal linguistic features of the extant corpus.48

He notes subsequently the necessity of considering word choices “within a framework of actual language usage,” the best understanding made possible when one “deals with language as it is actually evidenced in usage…[for] an element is only meaningful if it is defined wholly in terms of other elements.”49 His concerns, directed as they are toward verbs and syntax, apply also to morphology, especially given the semantic extremities entailed in diminutives. How can one small derivational morpheme mean both “dear” and “foolish,” “small” and “normal-sized,” derogation and politeness, in-group and marginalized—at the same time and in the same speech community? To attempt an explanation for these Janus words gone wild, we shall begin by summarizing the problems with reference to the New Testament, consider some cross-linguistic assessments in recent literature, and then propose application for specific New Testament occurrences. The first problem we shall note regarding diminutive semantics in the New Testament is the apparent non-functionality, even redundancy, of what has been called “faded” forms (also called “bleaching,” “generalization,” or “desemanticization”). The very morpheme that apparently marked smallness at some point in its lifetime ceases to do so in certain instances, as Petersen describes for Classical Greek. In the New Testament, faded forms may include ὠτίον (“ear-DIM”, Matt 26:51; Luke 22:51; John 18:26) when used of adults; πινακίδιον (“writing tablet-DIM”), which, along with its base form πίνακις, designated pocket-sized writing tablets even in Classical Greek.50 The diminuted form continues even when it carries no unique functional value in writing, as it presumably did in speech. Faded animal or people diminutives include ὀνάριον (“donkey-DIM”), παιδίον/παιδάριον 48. 49. 50.

Porter, Verbal Aspect, 4. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 7, 12, respectively. BAG 664.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

51

(“child-DIM”), κοράσιον (“girl-DIM”), νεανίσκος (“boy-DIM,” Matt 19:20, 22—per Moulton and Howard; see listing), and θυγάτριον (“daughter-DIM”). Are these truly faded, i.e., having no distinct meaning? Or could they actually reflect size scaling, designating smaller offspring of someone/something else of the same genre? They may indicate something that is small for its type but is not necessarily young (i.e., a small dog may not be a puppy, even though puppies are usually small for their kind). Unfortunately, ancient contexts leave relevant details unspecified for the modern reader. This potential use of diminutives involves subjectivity, the speaker/writer having to decide what is small for its genre. For example, the use of βιβλαρίδιον in Rev 10:2, 8, 9, and 10 indicates a document that is more than a single sheet but less than a book. Petersen may wrestle with this, having observed in his discussion of “faded” Greek diminutives that “In various languages there exist such pairs of adjectives as μειλίχιος and μειλίχος “mild,” “gentle”…in which the -(i)io- seems to be a formal extension to the primitive, bringing with it no change of meaning.”51 He saw that certain “diminutives” already were carrying no diminutive force in the Greek Classical literature. Swanson echoes this in his New Testament treatment: “A further semantic complication is that of “faded” diminutives. The question about παιδίον for example is: “When does it cease to mean ‘little boy’ and become simply ‘boy’?”52 Both authors opened the door for seeing diminution as a type of gradation. A similar issue can be cited for English: when does a leaflet upgrade to a document, a document to a pamphlet, a pamphlet to a paperback (in this lexical compound, paper implies a smaller book)? The choice of word resides in the mind of the beholder. The second problem involves the Janus-like contrast between endearment and derogation. The diminutive θυγάτριον surely implies endearment in Mark 5:23 and 7:25, as do certain uses of παιδίον (e.g., in address form, 1 John 2:14, 18; 3:7) and νοσσίον 51. 52.

Petersen, Greek Diminutives, 28. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 135.

52

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

(“young bird-DIM”) in Matt 23:37 being a metaphor of the people of Jerusalem that Jesus wants to protect. However, other diminutives are derogatory. The γυναικάριον of 2 Tim 3:6 has been variously translated: “weak/foolish/easily-misled women”; see also κεράτιον (“pod”), i.e., a poor man’s food (Luke 15:16), and στρουθίον (“sparrow,” Matt 10:29, 31), which has negligible value in contrast with God’s children. What is endearing in one context becomes dismissive or derogatory in another. The third problem involves shifts of reference in connection with diminution. Quality changes, typical of σχοινίον (John 2:15; Acts 27:32), which is a “slender rope,” or even κλινάριον (Acts 5:15) and κλινίδιον (Luke 5:19, 24), which seem to indicate portable alternatives to the more common κλίνη (“bed”), are not problematic because they involve gradation. But the diminutive θύρις (Acts 20:9; 2 Cor 11:33) indicates something quite different, a “window” not a “door.” The same goes with πτερύγιον (“pinnacle”), the “tip, extremity” in contrast to the thing from which it protrudes.53 Such diminutives imply a highly specific designation, “this not that,” a move beyond relative gradation to designation of another thing altogether. The fourth problem involves a social value that attaches to certain diminutives in particular speech communities, the diminuted form of a word becoming the customary, even preferential, way to designate something familiar. The use of “head-DIM” in Heb 10:7 with κεφαλίς (specifically, κεφαλίδι βιβλίου) may be such a case, as perhaps also the “pinnacle” of the temple (πινακίδιον)—as in modern languages and the Gospels, with things that often pertain to home and family, or at least are common property.54 Whatever reasons are located in the minds of the users (and these certainly vary between language communities), a preference for particular diminutive forms appears to connect positively with a community’s perceived values and relationships, but when and how a diminutive ceases to have its 53. See BAG 734. 54. See Moffatt, Hebrews, 138, on the designation of the head, i.e., tip of the stick to which scroll is attached.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

53

customary meaning (smallness, dearness, etc.) and becomes a communal marker is yet to be explained. Overall, New Testament diminutive meanings parallel their counterparts in other languages, and any advancement in understanding them will require consideration of contexts, as Porter, Dressler and Barbaresi, and others have insisted. Various solutions have been proposed in fields as diverse as linguistics, anthropology, and cognitive psychology (to name the more prominent ones), though three recurrent approaches seem to dominate consideration. One is to see something inherent within a word leading to its meaning and therefore its usage; a second proposes that the speaker’s current state of mind and intent, located within a social setting, prompts diminutive usage; and a third approach invokes something transcendent and inherently experiential in order to explain them. 3.1 Traditional/“Root Meaning” Not a few grammars of Greek and other languages state (or tacitly assume) there is meaning inherent in words (or parts of words), despite the revolution in diachronic lexical semantics over the past half-century that suggests quite to the contrary. Quite a number of modern language grammars I have perused simply report something along the lines of “diminutives mean smallness” (and sometimes “endearment”), with no attempt made to place them in a broader semantic paradigm. D.A. Carson and others discuss this “root fallacy,” the idea “which presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components.”55 This tacit misapprehension remains in many language grammars, but will not be considered further, in deference to the next two more profitable options. 3.2 Morphopragmatics A different starting point for assessing diminution lies in the area of intent and context. Pragmatics is concerned with the effect of context upon meaning, as are its related fields of speech act 55.

Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 26; discussion taken from 26–32.

54

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

theory and conversation-related implicature. At the forefront of these approaches are the knowledge and intentions of the speaker and the listener in particular social environments. Dressler and Barbaresi address “affixes and other morphological devices whose meaning appears to be primarily located in pragmatics. These devices exhibit no stable semantic value and their meaning seems to be often elusive.”56 Their work in modern European languages, which has been discussed already, begins with the speaker’s desired purposes and effects and then considers which morphemes are suitable to the speaker’s intended outcomes. For example, if one wishes to communicate smallness, a number of possibilities present themselves to the mind of the speaker, such as adjectives that convey small size (e.g., little, tiny, small), affixation (usually suffixes in Indo-European languages, such as English -y/-ie endings, possibly with root-morpheme changes: William  Billy; dog  puppy; cat  kitty), or the use of a qualifier such as an adverb (just, only, merely). The speaker considers from the possibilities what “does the job” most suitably in that situation and utterance. This morphopragmatic approach looks for “predictable, strategic uses in speech acts and speech situations,”57 and may help explain the diversity of diminutive meanings. It suggests that diminutives are not a fixed grammatical category like the primary concepts of noun, verb, adjective, etc., though even these items evidence a degree of fluidity. For example, English allows concepts like smallness and derogation to be conveyed in different ways: by the use of adjectives, such as little and tiny or foolish and stupid, respectively. It permits endearment to be conveyed via such vocatives as dear or darling. Quality adjustments can be done with other words, such as like and similar to, or by use of a suffix, such as -ish. Each concept exists apart from the morphemes and is selected in the mind of the speaker before a particular morpheme is used. Meaning and purpose, while conveyed through a root morpheme or affix of some sort, are not 56. 57.

Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, ix. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 84.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

55

inextricably tied to any one of them—a fact that becomes even more apparent as lexical semantics are tracked diachronically. So, in contrast to the traditional morphosemantic approach, which views diminutives as fundamentals, the pragmatic approach asks what purposes are attached to specific speech situations and events, for these are basic categories. Savickiene and Dressler argue there is “external evidence for the priority of pragmatic over semantic meanings of diminutives…”58 This outside-in approach may prove useful for New Testament consideration because even Swanson (like C.H. Turner) was prompted to speculate on what he called the “colloquial” use of diminutives in the Gospel of Mark,59 noting that it is “difficult to distinguish completely the true from the faded meanings, even in context” in the New Testament.60 He argues that, “contrary to the dogma, the New Testament has more diminutives…than comparable [Greek] texts of the period,” that is, if every form is considered regardless of meaning.61 Part of the evolutionary picture of living languages is the potential for a familiar form to change function, as Swanson saw in the development of Greek: It is difficult to distinguish completely the true form from the faded meanings, even in context; it is possible that even as new words were being coined with diminutive suffixes, older words with the same suffix(es) were losing their diminutive meaning. Words for children and young people seem particularly to belong to the category of faded diminutives. It is also possible that the rise of double and triple diminutives is due to the process of fading. This process would, however, have begun early [i.e., in the Classical period]…62

Daltas labels these faded forms “fossilized,” being “those in which the degree of cohesion of the string stem + D suffix is high enough to create the impression of new lexemes so that now some have replaced their non-diminuted equivalents in common

58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

Savickiene and Dressler, Morphopragmatics, 4. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 137, 143. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 146. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 150–51. Swanson, “Diminutives,” 147.

56

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

usage…”63 Dressler and Barbaresi claim their morphopragmatic offsets that semantic “elusiveness” that haunts morphologists who offer “vague and impressionistic” descriptions of meaning by factoring in semantic dependence on the speech situations in which a diminutive is being used.64 And they claim it also goes beyond pragmaticists, who “have largely disregarded the autonomous pragmatic value of productive morphological operations. In both fields, very little effort has been made to account systematically for their dependence on, and contribution to, the speech situations in which they typically occur.” The authors cite Levinson to the effect that speech situation and communication become mutually relevant via social deixis, which involves “those aspects of language structure that are anchored to the social identities of participants (including bystanders) in the speech event, or to relations between them, or to relations between them and other referents.”65 They urge consideration, among other things, of “speakers’ feelings and attitudes towards addressees and objects,”66 as well as an awareness of “those pragmatic goals of speech acts which the speaker wants to achieve by strategically using diminutives,” which can even serve as “an in-group marker.”67 If Levinson is correct that speech situations and communication become mutually relevant via social deixis, then more attention must be given to the relational networks in which diminutives are being used in the New Testament. We need to address speakers’ attitudes, feelings, and relationships to their addressees, per Dressler and Barbaresi, and factor into translation “those pragmatic goals of speech acts which the speaker wants to achieve by strategically using diminutives.”68 Daltas argues that 63. Daltas, “Patterns of Variability,” 76–77. 64. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 1. 65. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 18; cf. Levinson, “Pragmatics,” 206. 66. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 90. 67. At this point, the authors are critiquing Sifanou’s “Use of Diminutives.” 68. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 90.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

57

such a “variationist” approach permits “contextual meaning to permeate all statements of form.”69 Steven Runge comes at this same issue in Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: “It is very important to distinguish between the inherent meaning of something (its semantic meaning) and the effect achieved by using it in a particular context (its pragmatic effect).” He offers as an example the English phrase your children, which usually would emphasize possession or belonging—i.e., not mine but yours. But if a wife, speaking to her husband, refers to the kids as “your children,” the pragmatic effect of “distancing” (with a strong connotation of displeasure) occurs because the expected pronoun was not used. He cites Stephen Levinsohn’s example of the difference between the sentence John is polite and John is being polite—the latter verb form, which normally carries progressive aspect, here has the pragmatic effect of conveying insincerity.70 Repeatedly used diminutives (such as παιδία in 1 John), which can be classified as “faded” types, along with some from the Gospel narratives, are functioning as reflectors of relationship, being an in-group marker.71 The following diagram provides a visual framework for conceiving of the interaction between general semantic meaning and situation-dependant pragmatic effect. The horizontal axis provides possible meanings of morphemes (including affixes and some roots), which would be familiar in a traditional morphosemantic approach to denotation (e.g., smallness, youthfulness, insignificance, endearment). The vertical axis shows that the speaker’s intentions can then construe specific morphological forms in different nuanced directions (with connotations such as derogation, irony, community values), depending on context:

69. 70.

Daltas, “Patterns of Variability,” 63. Runge, Discourse Grammar, 8; cf. Levinsohn, Discourse Features,

71.

See also Sifanou, “Use of Diminutives.”

ix.

58

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2 Irony

Jr ,, ,,

,, .,, NeszatiYe s &

.- .

,, .,, . ..

Praise

Jr ,, ,,

,,~~v, ,, ... ~~ ,, ,, ... ~~ ,, ,, ,, ,, • ~v, ,, ,, ,,,..~~,, ,,,..~~~ ,, ,, '-.I

,, .,,

,, Diminuti ves ,, .,,

"-'

In-Group Talk

,, ,,

Jr

,, ""'

Augme ntatives

n.'O>"',- •\C. ,~.,. ,, ~" ,, ,, ,, "-ot~~ ,, ,, -:,{~~ ,, ,, '\,, ,, ,; ,, .,, '\,, ,, .,,,

Pn vahve s

~,,

DismissiYe

,-

~,,

Insults

.-

~,,

Sarcasm

Figure 1: Semantics and Pragmatics of Diminutives

This attempt at sensitivity to social and literary context, i.e., pragmatics, offers a step forward to explaining how a single morpheme can function so diversely, even if more remains to be clarified. 3.3 Categorization Another starting point, explored by anthropological linguists and cognitive psychologists in particular, involves the concept of categorization. Categorization starts with the fact that the human mind groups certain things together, and then subordinates other items underneath or within those groupings. The mind does this with tangible things, actions, qualities, and abstract concepts, thereby highlighting affinity with “like” concepts and identifying contrastive features that distinguish them from “unlike” ones. Categorization is the process by which concepts get related and differentiated; it involves affinity and dissimilarity. But how does this cognitive process of categorization actually work? A classical Western approach to categorization began with Plato and Aristotle; by identifying similarity of properties and using successive, narrowing criteria to include (or exclude) items from a category, the classical approach aimed to distinguish categories from each other and to put items in only one category. A variant that has been developed in recent decades involves conceptual clustering, which begins by generating a concept (i.e., class or cluster) description for a category on the basis of some inherent property that, as it were, generates its own classification—the twist being that objects may belong to more than

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

59

one category (per Fuzzy Set Theory). A third approach is prototype theory, in which the criteria for categorization are rarely derived from the natural world “out there” but arise from one’s internal cognitive experience and are subject to one’s framing culture(s) and language(s). Cross-linguistic studies, it is argued, show that categorization is more complex and culture-sensitive than mere feature-grouping, and that the language functions of the human mind are more than reflectors of the environment, being active interpreters that impose order onto their environment. Categories are therefore rooted in experience and will necessarily vary cross-culturally. A proponent of the prototype approach to categorization, George Lakoff, builds his version of the theory in connection with developments in cognitive science that involve a move away from what he labels the traditional “objectivist position” (i.e., human thought is largely abstract and involves mechanical manipulation of abstract symbols) to a position he calls “experiential realism” (thought is embodied, highly imaginative, social, and ecologically-sensitive).72 Human linguistic categorization was traditionally based on commonality of abstract features of things (i.e., the “shared properties of the members”), where-as prototype theory investigates how human imagination influences reason, thereby creating categories.73 Whereas the classical approach emphasizes “the set” of what is in- versus out-side a certain category, prototype theory involves not only human creativity but also gradation within categories. Certain items in a category are more central to it (i.e., proto-typical), while other items constitute “deviations from the central case.” Interacting with Eleanor Rosch, Lakoff argues that certain items are “better examples” of a category, while others are less effective representatives of that category, evidencing what he labels a “radial structure within a category…[in which] less central

72. 73.

Lakoff, Women, Fire, xi–xiv. Lackoff, Women, Fire, 8, where he introduces prototype theory.

60

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

subcategories are understood as variants of more central categories.”74 This radial feature characterizes how prototype theory diverges significantly from other theories of categorization: although radial structures (or radial categories, in particular) stand around a central case, “conventionalized variations on it…cannot be predicted by general rules.” Lakoff cites the concept of “mother” as an example; it includes variations such as stepmother, adoptive mother, biological mother, surrogate mother, and so forth, though “not all possible variations on the central case exist as categories.”75 He offers as an example of the latter the case of “birth-mother who becomes transsexual,” or “legal guardian mother who does not supply nurture.” In other words, there is a “central subcategory, defined by a cluster of converging cognitive models (the birth model, the nurturance model),” and there are extensions and variants—but these cannot be generated from the central model by rules. They are conventional to a language community and must be learned individually by those wishing to speak that language in that community. To substantiate the active role taken by the human mind in this process of categorization, Lakoff discusses the Australian aboriginal language Dyirbal, which has four noun classifiers, none of which seems obvious to other language speakers.76 One category (Bayi) includes such things as men, kangaroos, most snakes and fishes, rainbows and boomerangs. Another category (Balam) includes edible fruit, tubers, honey, and cigarettes, among other things. Still another (Bala) includes meat, wind, yamsticks, mud, stones, and language. In the fourth category (Balan) are such things as scorpions, fire, sun and stars, platypus and echidna, bandicoots, and women, and given the exotic diversity of things (to the Western mind, anyway) in the Balan category, a catchy book title was to loom imminently on the academic horizon. Lakoff argues that the traditional explanation of 74. 75. 76.

Lakoff, Women, Fire, 83, 40–46. Lakoff, Women, Fire, 83–84, 91–114. Lakoff, Women, Fire, ch. 6, particularly 92–94.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

61

categories as deriving from shared objective characteristics of the items included in that category simply fails when it comes to Balan; he concludes that this radial feature of categorization would require that “one must learn which domains of experience [and which myths and beliefs] are relevant to categorization and which are not.”77 His 600-page Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, like the bushman Xi’s appeal to the baboon that had snatched his Coke bottle in “The God’s Must Be Crazy,” is “long and arduous.” Lakoff does not discuss anything diminutively. Daniel Jurafsky, however, offers a bridge with a shorter span between mind and morpheme in his “Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive.” He calls the diminutive “any morphological device which means at least ‘small,’” with that device being near-universal and carrying a “bewildering variety of meanings.”78 He observes that the diminutive is connected with children but gets extended by metaphor, abstraction, and inference to many other things; diminutive semantics show an “astonishing cross-linguistic regularity,” even as certain language-specific extensions present an “extraordinary, often contradictory range of its senses.”79 Leaning on Lakoff, Jurafsky aims to “model the synchronic and diachronic semantics of the diminutive category with a radial category”80 in which the “central case” or quality is physical smallness. Other meanings, which subsequently get conveyed by the diminutive, arise by extension, hence they may be idiosyncratic to that language community. He proposes that diminutive pragmatic implications be construed under a “structured polysemy” model that captures the diachronic growth of a category while offering a synchronous “archaeology of meaning,” as he puts it. On the one hand, then, commonality of human experience addresses the cross-linguistic similarities between diminutives, while connections between the experiences and beliefs of a par77. 78. 79. 80.

Lakoff, Women, Fire, 96. Jurafsky, “Universal Tendencies,” 534. Jurafsky, “Universal Tendencies,” 533, 541. Jurafsky, “Universal Tendencies,” 533.

62

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

ticular language community lead to proprietary diminutive meanings unique to that specific community. Jurafsky notes, for example, that the Cantonese diminutive for “woman” indicates social marginalization.81 Richard Rhodes in a similar vein refers to “a significant number of forms which occur only as diminutives” in the native American language Ojibwa, commenting that “the grounds for considering the referents of many of these diminutives small are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.”82 Perhaps the same can be said for the New Testament. 4. Implications for New Testament Diminutives To apply the foregoing to New Testament diminutives, we return to some observations. The most frequently used New Testament diminutives are παιδίον (46x in Gospels, 7x in epistles), νεανίσκος (9x in Gospels and Acts), τεκνίον (1x in John, 8x in epistles), παιδίκη (8x in Gospels and Acts, 5x in Galatians) and κοράσιον (8x in Gospels)—these five words pertaining to people comprise one-half of all New Testament occurrences. All but one of the 29 occurrences of ἀρνίον appear in the Apocalypse. The remaining 27 diminutive forms in the New Testament occur one to six times each. Following are some suggestions relevant to the issue of how New Testament occurrences fit into the bigger picture of world languages. First, we shall assume that many New Testament diminutives carry “garden variety” meanings, from the young daughter who is healed to the portable bedding (κλινίδιον, Mark 5:23, 7:25) by which a paralyzed man was let down before Jesus through a hole in the roof. The same is probably true for the small fish (ὀψάριον, John 6:9, 11) that miraculously fed crowds and the portable writing pad (πινακίδιον, with wax on wood, Luke 1:63) onto which 81. Jurafsky, “Universal Tendencies,” 534. 82. Rhodes, “Lexical Hierarchies,” 154. I wish to thank Richard Rhodes for directing me to his research, and that of Jurafsky, and for helpful comments offered in response to one of the three conference papers I presented on the subject.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

63

Zacharias scratched his thoughts. We should not rule out the likelihood that younger persons appear in the Gospel narratives and were identified by the writers who intended reference to their smallness. However, even when small size is indicated (e.g., νησίον), it must be remembered that smallness is relative to other things in the same genre, and something can be smallish without being tiny. Second, the appearance of twelve possibly-faded diminutives involving family members in 1 John is noteworthy, especially since all are vocatives. In an epistolary environment in which the sender is appealing pastorally to friends he cares for and wishes to protect, the preferable translation is “dear” (NIV), as also with children/young men (for τεκνία and νεανίσκοι), rath-er than “little” (NASB), for this reflects the writer’s affection for his pastoral charges. The pastoral nature of the context en-courages this conclusion. As Petersen and Swanson note, certain New Testament diminutives are “faded” and have become conventional and may no longer carry particular size implication (e.g., παιδίον, ἀρνίον, νεανίσκος). In other words, form is never the final determiner of literal function but, like the proliferation of Dutch, Australian, and Polish diminutives discussed previously, they are being used as in-group markers relating to value perceptions. Swanson’s caution regarding the difficulty of distinguishing faded meanings, that “words for children and young people seem particularly to belong to the category of faded diminutives,” along with the fact that taken together these tend to occur in three categories (animals, youths, and tangible objects) may indeed point to community values apart from literal smallness.83 Again, a Dutchman drinking pils “beer” at the local pub will invite his friend to a pils-je because the issue is friendship, not cup size. This factor may explain some of Petersen’s “faded diminutives” (and in the New Testament, words such as παιδίον, τεκνίον, νεανίσκος, ἐρίφιον, and the process labeled variously “bleaching,” “generalization,” “desemanticization” or “downgrading”), and would be accounted for in the La83.

Swanson, “Diminutives,” 146–47.

64

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

koff and Jurafsky approaches in which extension beyond a common word or form becomes customary to a speech community even when it is no longer distinctly meaningful. When something starts to “sound right” and becomes customary to community ears, it tends to stick around. Third, it is possible that Jairus’s urgent appeal for Jesus to help his ailing daughter (Mark 5:23)—like the Markan reference (7:25) to the account of the Canaanite woman that comes next— identifies the girl specifically as a θυγάτριον perhaps to evoke compassion for both offspring and parents. The fact that even a sparrow (στρουθίον) worth no more than a small copper coin is on God’s radar (Matt 10:29, 31) is highlighted by the diminutive. The imposition of need and importunity of request invites minimization, even between friends, so if diminutives “mark a high degree of familiarity between the participants in a situation,”84 as Daltas suggests, their use at these places may be intentionally evocative of feeling. Addressing one’s readers as τεκνία in 1 John surely is a hypercoristic technique, given the epistle’s pastoral intent. Perhaps further research will identify other hypercoristic terms elsewhere in the New Testament. Fourth, the juxtaposition of diminutives in the account of Jesus and the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:2–28//Mark 7:24–30) invites comment, given the fact that one diminutive is used to answer another in a poignant request involving great personal need. When the mother seeks Jesus’ help for her demon-possessed daughter, he responds that it would not be right to give children’s bread to the κυνάριοις (dogs-DAT-DIM < κύων)—by most accounts, using an insulting reference to Gentiles that presumably would be familiar to him and her. She answers that diminutive with another, noting that even κυνάρια get to eat from the ψιχίων (crumbs-GEN) that fall from the table. In response, Jesus commends her faith and heals her daughter. Dressler and Barbaresi observe that certain conditions, such as intimacy, favor the use of diminutives. Intimacy involves a “readiness to reveal some particular aspects of one’s personality and of one’s inner 84.

Daltas, “Patterns of Variability,” 63.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

65

world that one conceals from other people; a readiness based on personal trust and on personal ‘good feelings.’”85 The collocation of diminutives connected to a poignant request amidst family vulnerability is explained best as pragmatic intent rather than semantic literalness. It is not irrelevant that “in many societies, women seem to be more contact-oriented than men… [hence] the greater use of diminutives by women than by men.”86 However, as Brown and Levinson caution, “societies are not the same interactionally, and…[there are] innumerable possibilities for misunderstanding…[with] endless daily reminders of the social/cultural relativity of politeness and of norms of acceptable interaction.”87 Is the diminutive of dogs on Jesus’ lips reference or use? If the former, Jesus is saying in effect: “We both know that my people refer to yours as dogs.” Or are there specific social rules of conversation at work between them that are simply unknown to the modern reader? Whatever the case, the mother responds to Jesus’ diminutive with another diminutive and Jesus responds positively to her quick comeback by healing her daughter; personal difficulty is resolved felicitously with a little word-play. Sifanou’s observations are pertinent: Requests are among the best examples of [Modern] Greek diminutives exhibiting pragmatic force in polite interaction. For Brown and Levinson, requests always involve some type of imposition, which always requires some kind of minimization. Being polite, therefore, is largely a matter of being on the alert to minimize impositions by using the proper mitigating devices… Perhaps this is more typical of Greek society, where members of in-groups tend to depend on each other rather than on institutions (for instance, in obtaining loans) than of some other Western societies…88

Sifanou also notes the use of the dubitative marker -μιπος “by any chance” in order to indicate uncertainty and hesitation in 85. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 214; cf. Wierzbicka, Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, 105. 86. Dressler and Barbaresi, Morphopragmatics, 413. 87. Brown and Levinson, Politeness, 253. 88. Sifanou, “Use of Diminutives,” 160–61.

66

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

Modern Greek, thereby helping to mitigate the impact of a request, especially in cases of uncomfortable social distance. As to the strategy, she suggests that [B]y representing the item requested as a “dear little thing” necessary for her, the speaker is expressing her feelings, though not necessarily to the item itself. Like all positive politeness markers, the diminutive in this context does not address the particular act, but the satisfaction of positive-face needs in general.89

Brown and Levinson argue that minimizing strategies are especially useful when the speaker making a request is unclear about the degree of difference in the variables of power, social distance, and ranking of imposition.90 Per Sifanou, “[D]iminutives convey informality and solidarity characteristic of positive politeness… [T]he presence of a diminutive either reaffirms an existing in-group framework or expresses the speaker’s wish to be treated within such a framework.”91 Perhaps similar dynamics were at work in Jesus’ interaction with the Canaanite woman. Fifth, diminutives connected with familiar household matters may reflect customary, even provincial—and possibly faded or redundant—diminutive markers. A hint of this comes from certain New Testament texts in which base and diminuted forms of the same word occur in proximity. Malchus’s severed ear (Matt 26:51//Luke 22:51//John 18:26), for example, is referred to by ὠτίον in three Gospels, one of which (Luke 22:50) had just identified it specifically as his right οὖς in the immediately preceding verse. Base and diminuted forms would be interchangeable in the case of fading. Various references to a πλοιάριον on Lake Galilee (Mark 3:9; also John 6:22, 23, 24; 21:8) would be redundant since few, if any, boats would have been large anyway; and besides, Jesus subsequently climbs back into a πλοῖον (Mark 4:1). Other examples include the Syro-Phoenician θυγάτριον (“daughter-DIM,” Mark 7:25), who moves Jesus to compassion, 89. 90. 91.

Sinfanou, “Use of Dimunutives,” 163. Brown and Levinson, Politeness, 176–78. Sifanou, “Use of Diminutives,” 171, 172.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes

67

being identified in the next verse (v. 26) by the base form. At the judgment day (Matt 25:33), the Son of Man is said to separate πρόβατα (“sheep”) from ἔριφιον (“goat”-DIM); sheep is a base lexical form yet goat is diminuted. When Jesus exhorts Peter to shepherd others, the first exhortation involves the diminutive ἀρνίον (John 21:15), while, in the majority of manuscripts, the next two are simply sheep in the base lexical form (John 21:16– 17). And there are more. In John 12:14, Jesus locates an ὀνάριον, which, in the next verse (citing Zech 9:9), is labeled by the base form ὄνος, leaving open the question of whether he was riding the offspring of a nearby donkey, a donkey that was particularly small, or possibly just a donkey being labeled with a faded form.92 There are also Synoptic examples where the word in one Gospel is from the base form, while its parallel reference uses a diminutive form, such as ὀψάριον in John 6:9, 11 appearing as ἰχθύας in Matt 14:17, 19//Mark 6:38, 41//Luke 9:13, 16. These may reflect fading, or conversely, that certain communities preferred a diminutive form even when a base form was readily understood. Sifanou, among others, observes that “diminutives are not normally used in formal speech”93 and cites Daltas as reporting that the frequency of diminutives increases as situational formality decreases.94 If there is any commonality of social economy between ancient peoples and our world today, we might tentatively conclude that these kinds of references in the Gospels reinforce the authenticity of their first-hand source material. Sixth, perhaps morphologically complex/redundant diminutives, like βιβλαρίδιον, evidence “the semantic paths” words sometimes take over time (per Jurafsky), and may be evidence of a metaphoric shift to a new domain. The earlier reference gradually gets conventionalized, until a new and more generalized sense is acquired, and the diminuted form becomes less specific 92. 93. 94.

See BAG 573. Sifanou, “Use of Diminutives,” 168. Daltas, “Patterns of Variability,” 85.

68

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2

than the earlier one. Perhaps many diminutive forms have resulted (as implied in my earlier discussion of the range of sizes, i.e., between pamphlet level and lengthy manuscript) from perceived differences in size gradations, eventually ceasing to have much literal specificity. A faded form may reflect the trajectory (as Jurafsky calls it) that eventuates in semantic shift. Seventh, Dressler and Barbaresi’s morphopragmatic approach appears to account for the fact that many New Testament diminutives relate to hearth-and-home, as evidenced by words such as ὠτίον, ψωμίον, σχοινίον, στρουθίον, ὀψάριον, and κλινίδιον. Their prevalence may reflect vernacular speech underlying the written Gospels, being vestiges of community speech habits in which social identification was flagged by diminution of familiar household words. Yet pragmatics alone cannot explain why there is so much cross-linguistic similarity of diminutives in genetically unrelated languages. However, a centralized household proto-concept relevant to infancy and childhood that has undergone extensions that made sense to a once-living language community goes a long way toward explaining the vicissitudes of diminutive semantics. The universality of diminutives may evidence (per Lakoff) the perception that certain items are more central and typical to a category than others. Faded diminutives likely conveyed smallness at some point in their history. Things pertaining to the infancy of humans or animals seem to lie universally at the center of diminutives, the central concept being smallness. So whether the morpheme should be understood as a marker of smallness, endearment, or derogation, a means of politeness, or something pertaining to community values and solidarity, diminutives—particularly in the Gospels—need to be explored further with reference to their contextual implications and pragmatic strategy. Further consideration of LXX diminution may help in the pursuit, as would additional data from ancient and modern languages, and hopefully this study will facilitate that.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes Bibliography Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. Cowgill, Warren. “A Search for Universals in Indo-European Diachronic Morphology.” In Universals of Language, edited by Joseph H. Greenberg, 114–41. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1968. Daltas, P. “Some Patterns of Variability in the Use of Diminutive and Augmentative Suffixes in Spoken Modern Greek Koine.” Glossologia 4 (1985) 63–88. Delbridge, Arthur. “Standard Australian English.” World Englishes 18 (1999) 259–70. Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages, edited by Werner Winter. TiLSM 76. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Haas, Mary R. “The Expression of the Diminutive.” In Language, Culture, and History: Essays by Mary R. Haas, edited by Anwar S. Dil, 82–88. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978. Jurafsky, Daniel. “Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive.” Language 72 (1996) 533–78. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Levinson, Stephen. “Pragmatics and Social Deixis: Reclaiming the Notion of Conventional Implicature.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 5 (1979) 206–23. Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Informational Structure of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International, 2000. Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. ICC. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963 (1924).

69

70

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2 Moulton, James Hope, and Wilbert Francis Howard. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 2, Accidence and Word Formation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976 (1920). Petersen, Walter. Greek Diminutives in –ION. Weimar, Germany: R. Wagner Sohn, 1910. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. SBG 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Rhodes, Richard A. “Lexical Hierarchies and Ojibwa Noun Derivation.” In Meanings and Prototypes: Studies on Linguistic Categorization, edited by S.L. Tsohatzidis, 151–58. London: Routledge, 1990. Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. Savickiene, Ineta, and Wolfgang U. Dressler, eds. The Acquisition of Diminutives: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Sifanou, Maria. “The Use of Diminutives in Expressing Politeness: Modern Greek versus English.” Journal of Pragmatics 17 (1992) 155–73. Simpson, J.I. “Hypocoristics of Place-Names in Australian English.” In English in Australia, edited by David Blair and Peter Collins, 89–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966. Swanson, Donald C. “Diminutives in the Greek New Testament.” JBL 77 (1958) 134–51. Turner, C.H. “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel.” JTS O.S. 29 (1928) 346–52. Turner, Nigel. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 4, Style. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976. Vervaeke, John, and Christopher D. Green. “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Theories: A Critique of Lakoff’s Theory of Categorization.” Metaphor and Symbol 12 (1997) 59–80. White, Colin, and Laurie Boucke. The Undutchables. Lafayette, CO: White Boucke, 2006.

WATT Diminutive Suffixes Wierzbicka, Anna. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. ———. “Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 9 (1985) 145–78. ———. “Diminutives and Depreciatives: Semantic Representation for Derivational Categories.” Quaderni di Semantica 1 (1984) 123–30.

71

72

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 2 Appendix: Diminutives in the Greek New Testament Based on list given by Swanson, with many references and one correction added. Primary forms marked with an asterisk do not occur in the New Testament.

-ιον ἀρνίον

John 21:15; Rev 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1, 4, 4, 10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3

( < ἄρην )

ἐρίφιον

Matt 25:33//Luke 15:29

( < ερίφος )

θυγάτριον

Mark 5:23; 7:25

( < θυγάτηρ )

κεράτιον

Luke 15:16

( < κέρας )

νήσιον

Acts 27:16

( < νήσος )

νοσσίον

Matt 23:27

( < νόσσος )

παιδίον

Matt 2:8, 9, 11, 13, 13, 14, 20, 20, 21; 11:16; 14:21; 15:38; 18:2, 3, 4, 5; 19:13, 14; Mark 5:39, 40, 40, 41; 7:28, 30; 9:24, 36, 37; 10:13, 14, 15; Luke 1:59, 66, 76, 80; 2:17, 27, 40; 7:32; 8:16, 17; 9:47, 48; 11:7; John 4:49; 16:21; 21:5; 1 Cor 14:20; Heb 2:13, 14; 11:23; 1 John 2:14, 18; 3:7

( < παῖς )

πρόβατιον

John 21:16, 17

(