The Analysis of Adjectives

The Analysis of Adjectives

Adjectives are doubtless the most complicated part of our analysis. The tags consist of seven positions. Adjectives typically modify substantives and take the tag (a-). Frequently they are pronominal, that is, they stand for a noun. As such they take the tag (ap). Compare the phrase tèn (dams) ‡gaqèn (a--am-s) ˆnqrwpon (n-am-s) with the phrase tèn (DAMS) ‡gaqçn (ap-am-s). In the latter ‡gaqçn stands for the noun, so the first two letters in the tag are appropriately ap. (We use substantive of anything that is or acts like a noun, whether it be tagged n-, np, or ap.) An adjective, then, is (a-) when modifying an overt substantive; it may also be (a-) in predicate position. If there is no substantive which to modify, it becomes the substantive and is tagged (ap).

In the analysis we only allow that an adjective modifies a substantive in its own clause, not in a clause some distance away. For example, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15.39: oÇ p‚sa srx Ó aÇtÑ s€rx, ‡ll ˆllj (ap-nf-s) mšn ‡nqrðpwn ….The adjective ˆllj is tagged as it is because in its clause it stands for a substantive ("one [flesh] is of men"). Note that f and n in the fifth position of the adjective tag do not necessarily stand for woman/women and thing(s), respectively, any more than m stands for man/men. The combination of ap and gender indicates only that a substantive is missing and is replaced by the adjective, whether s€rx or gunÐ (f), ¿Òma or paid°on (n), kçsmov or ‡nÐr (m), for example.

An adjective in predicate position may be either ap or a-. According to 2 Corinthians 13.5-7 are we ‡dçkimoi ("disqualified"), a-; or ("counterfeits"), ap? In Luke 7.39 is the woman "sinful" (ƒmartwlçv), a-; or "a sinner," ap? Our criterion for choosing between the two (only rarely do we say ap/a-) is this: choose a- unless the context indicates that the predicate adjective is somehow being quantified. That this does not accord with English translations of particular sentences is not our concern. Our purpose is to analyze Greek sentences. A few words, such as numbers, are regularly analyzed in predicate position as ap on the ground that they delimit quantity, not quality.

7.1 Two Adjectives Standing Together

Where two adjectives stand together with the same number, gender, and case and are accompanied by no noun, there may be confusion as to which is modifier and which is modified. No rule of thumb based on order has been established. When both words are plain descriptive adjectives, our procedure has been to determine according to sense which is to be tagged with a hyphen in the second position. A letter in the third place of an adjective’s tag usually means that it is the modifier and has in the second position of its tag a hyphen. T° and eµv are examples of adjectives analyzed as modifying; for example, John 1.46: ti (a-inn-s) ‡gaqçn (ap-nn-s), "some good thing" rather than "a good something." The few exceptions and the reasons for them will be evident as the reader encounters them.

7.2 Two- and Three-Termination Adjectives

Adjectives are usually either two- or three-termination adjectives. Two-termination adjectives put masculine and feminine together in one set of morphological endings and neuter in the other set. Three-termination adjectives, of course, have one morphological set of endings per gender. We mention this as introductory to observing that some three-termination adjectives sometimes behave as two-termination adjectives. For example, see Titus 3.9, where m€taioi is given the analysis a--nf-p. The particular ending used by Paul can be explained either by the fact that it is immediately preceded by ‡nwfele²v, an unambiguous two-termination adjective, which predisposes him to using -oi, or by the fact that m€taiov is occasionally used as if it were of two terminations, a fact noted by BAGD. (Of course, the two explanations are not unrelated.)

7.3 Adjectives Functioning like Nouns

A few comments given in section 4 above should be reviewed here. AÇtçv is analyzed as two homonyms, one tagged npnm3s and meaning "self" (an intensifier), the other a--nm-s and meaning "same." A few words like ˆkron, perhaps expected to be adjectives but having apparently lost their adjectival sense, are tagged n-. Others like moical°v, although properly nouns, are analyzed as ap or a- due to their activity as adjectives. A number of words, properly adjectives in contemporaneous Greek, are left as n- due to their overriding importance, among them kÀriov and its feminine, kur°a.

7.4 Adjectives Followed by Nouns

Adjectives, like adverbs, need not be considered prepositions or even simply pronominal adjectives for them to be followed by a noun. In English we can say "I am happy with him" or "I am angry about that." The prepositional phrases "with him" and "about that" modify the adjective. So it is in Greek: é dš ... êmoiçv (a--nm-s) stin ‡nqrðpû (n-dm-s) (Luke 6.49). The appropriate analysis of êmoiçv modifying é ‡koÀsav … poiÐsav, is a--nm-s rather than ap-nm-s or ap-nm-s^pd. A similar example is this: ˆxion (a--an-s) qan€tou (n-gm-s) (Acts 23.29).

7.5 Cardinals and Ordinals

The subdivision of adjectives indicated by the third-place symbol is important because it includes so much: cardinal numbers, ordinals, relatives, indefinites, interrogatives, demonstratives, comparatives, superlatives, and descriptive adjectives. By putting these all in one column we say in effect that they are mutually exclusive. This has worked well as long as we consider pròtov and deÀterov to be ordinals and not also superlative and comparative, respectively. They have these additional meanings in form, and it can be argued that these are semantic components as well. hOpo²ov is analyzed instance by instance as either interrogative or relative.

Cardinals and ordinals are clear-cut. Deutera²ov (ap-nm-p) and tesserakontaetÐv (a--nm-s) are, for our purposes, not numbers, but descriptive adjectives and thus -. The indeclinable numbers are assigned case, gender, and person according to their use in context.

7.6 Relative Pronouns

7.6.1 The Adjectival Function of Relative Pronouns

Relatives function as part of the adjective system in our analysis for two reasons. First, whole relative clauses usually function to modify a noun in the same way an adjective does. Second, a few relatives are simple modifiers (a-r instead of apr) of following nouns. Among them are the Õn found in Matthew 10.11 (a-raf-s), and the o´ouv found in 2 Timothy 3.11 (a-ram-p). Because relatives work analogously to adjectives, they are appropriately placed in the same category. Before discussing relatives, we must make an important digression.

We said in 1.4 above that we distinguish between the grammatical, surface structure of language and its semantic, underlying structure. The grammatical structure is observable, the written or spoken message; the semantic structure represents the meaning of the message. We posit this theoretical construct because there is, as we have already illustrated, a skewing between meaning and grammar. Because human communication is redundant by nature, information can be absent at the surface level of speech or writing but demonstrably present at the level of meaning.

In the following discussion the term antecedent will frequently appear, meaning the substantive that the relative clause modifies. The antecedent is part of the main or "upper" clause to which the relative clause is subordinate. Normally there is an overt antecedent that the relative clause modifies. Frequently, however, the grammatical (or surface) structure contains no antecedent, in which case we might supply one as part of the relative-pronoun tag analysis because it is demonstrably part of the semantic structure. When we do this, the antecedent will be part of the upper clause semantically, though absent grammatically.

In the following paragraphs our discussion first posits the underlying semantic structure to which the relative pronoun relates. In order to demonstrate the richness of competing possibilities, we will temporarily use in our discussion some complex working analyses to show the relevant semantic structures. These complex tags are replaced by simpler, easier-to-use tags in our final, published analysis. At every place where there is a difference we will make this clear.

For purposes of discussion we label a missing antecedent apd, that is, a demonstrative pronoun. (The one exception is noted below.) When it comes to translation, we can sometimes even name the antecedent because it is so clearly identified in the context ("write the things/events/scenes that you saw"). But for purposes of the working analysis, we use apd ("that [one]/those [things]"). At other times the focus is much less definite. Often this is indicated by an overt marker such as €n or ˆn. But equally often it must be determined from semantics alone without help from grammar. Thus in the sentence ka± ëv oÇ lamb€nei … oÇk žstin mou ˆxiov (Matthew 10.38), our working analysis of ëv is aprnm-s^apdnm-s&aprnm-s: "That one [supplied antecedent] who [relative] does not take (his cross) … is not worthy of me." Semantically the intent is indefinite, "Anyone who…." Rather than replace relevant apd tags with api, we have marked all supplied antecedents apd in our discussion (except first- and second-person relatives, which are np and for which see below). One reason for this is simplicity. api tags would complicate the tagging formula for those ambiguous cases, thus requiring api/apd tags. Also BAGD refers to implied demonstratives even where it is clearly an indefinite identity. We leave it to the reader to supply, after considering the context, any indefinite reading.

The relatives in the New Testament include êv, êstiv, oµov, êsov, and épo²ov. Though êstiv had historically been an indefinite relative, by New Testament times it had become parallel in a number of usages with êv. (As just noted, definite êv occasionally has indefinite êstiv usage.) We take all New Testament relatives as definite and leave it to the reader to identify the indefinite ones. The one exception to this is êti. As a relative it is conventionally written as two words, ê ti. Since our analysis is word by word, the separated ti is tagged a-ian-s.

7.6.2 The Kinds of Relative Pronouns

Following are illustrations of the various kinds of relatives and our analysis of them:

a. … pignònai tÑn a¸t°an di@ Õn (apraf-s) nek€loun … (Acts 23.28). Since this construction is the normal one, it hardly needs to be given. And yet it is so parallel to the following example that it is instructive. The upper clause has a verb and an object that is relativized. The relative has as its antecedent "the reason," and the tag apraf-s.

b. … epignþ di@ Õn (apraf-s+) a¸t°an … (Acts 22.24). In this example the commander wants to know "the reason (a¸t°an) for (di@) which (Õn)" the people are yelling at Paul. The "reason" is clearly contained in the main clause as the object of the verb "to know," and it is elaborated in the relative clause. Which reason is it? The one for which the people are yelling at him. For one of several reasons that we will not discuss here, the antecedent is incorporated into the relative clause. The relative is not an adjective modifying "reason" (which reason), but a clause, headed by a relative pronoun, the whole of which modifies "reason" (reason which). The upper clause demands the antecedent for its own sake. The tag includes a right-side plus (+) to indicate the unexpected location of the antecedent (following rather than preceding the relative pronoun).

The above example is an instance of the antecedent being incorporated into (rarely, following) the relative clause. For whatever reasons, this incorporation means that the antecedent is taken out of the upper clause, where it has a grammatical function to fulfill, and placed in the subordinate relative clause. (Note that incorporated antecedents, unlike the antecedent in example a, consistently appear alone, without any article or modifier they might otherwise have had. See Luke 3.19 as an example of a modifying adjective being left behind in the upper clause.)

c. … lp°di … per± Öv (a-rgf-s) lp°dov … (Acts 26.6-7). Here the antecedent precedes the relative, which it should semantically. (We say nothing about where an antecedent may or must be in the surface, grammatical structure.) The antecedent is lp°di in verse 6. An intervening antecedent and relative clause (paggel°av … e¸v Õn) momentarily distract attention from lp°di, so when Paul gets to its relative clause, he reestablishes the antecedent. HElp°dov is not being incorporated into the relative clause from the upper clause; it is copied or repeated for emphasis. (We do not deny the possibility that the incorporation of example b might be for emphasis, though there are others.) The relative in example c is an adjective modifying the following "hope" and so is tagged a-rgf-s. There is no plus sign because there is no incorporated antecedent (there is no place in the upper clause for the second lp°v).

d. Di@ Õn (a-raf-s) a¸t°an (2 Timothy 1.6). Here there is no prior, upper clause, though a¸t°an does distill an idea from the earlier discourse. We analyze the relative as an adjective modifying reason. There is no plus sign because no incorporation has occurred. In this example the would-be relative clause has no internal verb. We might say that it acts like a conjunction introducing the following clause, though a number of a-r relatives do contain their own verb; for example, e¸v Õn (a-raf-s) ‰n pçlin e¸s™rcjsqe (Luke 10.8), which is then followed by the upper clause. This relative clause sets the location for the action of the main clause. The main clause has no antecedent, or even a place for one semantically. Thus the relative pronoun is tagged a-r, modifying the following pçlin.

Before proceeding with our presentation and analysis of relatives, we must illustrate the importance of correctly identifying the surface markers that relate the propositions of a discourse. At the surface level of language there is a series of sentences, simple or complex, strung together and corporately forming a discourse. At the underlying semantic level there is a series of propositions, central to each of which is a verb (event or state). The propositions are related to each other in definite ways.

"I sing because I am happy" consists of two propositions, "I sing" and "I am happy." The second is the cause of or reason for the first. At the grammatical level, the relations between propositions are usually expressed by either conjunctions or relative pronouns, though other grammatical devices do exist for this. Here the relation is articulated by the conjunction because, a surface relator that joins a reason and a result.

"I like the song that you are singing" also expresses two propositions. "I like the song" and "You are singing the song." The second proposition identifies the object, "song," of the first. How propositions are related can determine the message or meaning of that set of propositions. If these two propositions are related in the same way (that is, one identifies a noun in the other) but in opposite order, they convey quite a different meaning. "You are singing the song that I like." Before the message was that I am pleased by something (identified); now it is that you are doing something (identified).

Now we may return to the different kinds of relatives. So far we have looked at cases in which: (a) an upper clause (proposition) contains a noun that is relativized (the normal case); (b) the noun from the upper clause is incorporated into the relative clause, for whatever reason; (c) the antecedent is repeated or copied in the relative clause; and (d) in the absence of a relative clause, the would-be antecedent is of the main (upper) clause stands without subordination and the relative pronoun relates to it as an adjective. The next kind is quite frequent: (e) the relative pronoun acts as both antecedent of the upper clause and relative pronoun to its own clause.

e. … ¸de²n … (apran-p^apdan-p&apran-p) bl™pete … (Matthew 13.17). In the upper clause we have people longing to see something; in the relative, the identity of that something. Semantically … relates both ways, which the tag reflects. It is a relative pronoun (apran-p) used as (^) its own antecedent (apdan-p) and (&) as a relative pronoun (apran-p). Though the complex tag contains three simple tags, it is a one-unit formal analysis (to the left of ^) and a two-unit functional analysis. The case assignment is entirely accusative because the two sides joined by … both need an object in the relative pronoun. Compare Revelation 1.19, where the first relative pronoun is entirely accusative in its analysis (objects of "write" and "see"). The second …, however, is aprnn-p^apdan-p&aprnn-p because the relative pronoun itself is the nominative subject of e¸s±n, while the supplied antecedent is the accusative object of "write." With rare exceptions (e.g. œwv oÆ constructions through assimilation), the formal working analysis is identical with at least one unit of the functional analysis. The tag we assign to these complicated situations is the simple tag (-apran-p) in the Matthew 13.17 construction and (-aprnn-p) in the Revelation 1.19b construction. The minus symbol preceding the apr is to be read as just that, that is, these relatives are lacking an overt (and preceding) antecedent.

f. In a significant number of cases, the relative clause begins the sentence. Some have said that in this situation the relative pronoun itself functions as a substantive, and we would not argue. Again for purposes of discussion we choose to supply in a complex tag of the appropriate relative pronouns both the expected "relative tag" (which relates to the verb in the subordinate, relative clause) and an "antecedent tag" (which relates to the verb in the upper clause). We do this because our analysis is of words rather than phrases (or clauses) and because, at the semantic level of propositions, two events and/or states need to be related. The upper-clause connection for these relative clauses at the beginning of sentences follows the relative clause. There are several subtypes:

f¹. … ëv (aprnm-s^apdnm-s&aprnm-s) oÇ lamb€nei … oÇk žstin mou ˆxiov (Matthew 10.38). This clause was given in 7.6.1 above as an example of a semantically indefinite relative clause. The relative clause in this subtype acts like the subject of the sentence, though it could take any number of noun functions. It differs from other subtypes in that no overt word in the following upper clause can be identified as the semantic antecedent for the relative clause. We give it the simplified tag -aprnm-s, again describing the relative and pointing out its antecedentless condition.

f². … £ (aprdm-s+) par™qento polÀ, perissçteron a¸tÐsousin aÇtçn (Luke 12.48). In this subtype the semantic antecedent (alternately, the grammatical resumer) of the relative clause is contained overtly within the upper clause. "They will demand more of him" is the main clause; the relative clause identifies "him." Thus, "they will demand more of him to whom much has been entrusted." Since the antecedent (or resumer) of the relative is present but does not precede it as expected, a plus sign follows the tag. That a pronoun can be relativized is clear (see Acts 19.27; John 10.35; Hebrews 2.10; 4.13).

f³. … … (apran-p+) Økousav ... taÂta par€qou ... (2 Timothy 2.2). In this correlative construction the needed semantic antecedent for … is taÂta. Semantically, then, it reads, "Entrust these things that you have heard…." Again a plus sign shows the antecedent’s location, which, while unexpected for antecedents in general, is expected for a correlative construction. The simplified tag -apran-p (equivalent to the working analysis apran-p^apdan-p&apran-p) could have been used in place of the simple apran-p+. In the complex tag the antecedent supplied in the analysis is repeated (hence, resumer as an alternate expression in f² and f³) in taÂta. We choose the simpler analysis, wanting to supply as few missing pieces of the semantic structure as possible. But there is support for the repetition of the antecedent (see Luke 12.8, 10, 48a).

Grammatically the subclasses of f are relative clauses acting like substantives. The pronoun in the following upper clause (f²and f³) identifies the grammatical tie-in of each substantive. The following pronouns may be viewed as resumers. Semantically the subclasses of f are relative clauses that comment on or identify further the following semantic antecedent in the upper or main clause. They play no semantic function apart from tying in with the main proposition.

In looking for antecedents to which to relate relative pronouns, remember that anything substantive in the preceding context qualifies without regard to how far back it appears or how the words are punctuated. Compare Luke 23.18-19, where Barabbas, whose name the angry mob is crying, is the antecedent for the author’s parenthetical comment immediately following. Sometimes the antecedent is a preceding thought or phrase; in Ephesians 6.2 it is the quoted commandment. If the antecedent is in the following context, any substantive is acceptable that relates directly to the main verb. This includes subjects, objects, indirect objects, and objects of prepositions. The last-named possibility is illustrated in Matthew 5.41: "Go two miles with him [antecedent] who forces you to go one." We have disallowed one case of following antecedent: when a pronoun or noun relates not to the main verb of the upper clause, but to another noun that in turn relates to the main verb. For example, in Matthew 10.42 the only overt substantive in the upper clause to which the relative phrase might be tied is the pronoun aÇtoÂ, which modifies tèn misqèn. It makes no sense to call that pronoun the antecedent: "He will never lose the reward of him (= his) who gives one of these little ones a cup of cold water to drink." The relative clause relates to the subject of the sentence, which Greek need not supply, rather than to the overt second-level pronoun aÇtoÂ. Therefore our working analysis supplies the necessary semantic antecedent, aprnm-s^apdnm-s&aprnm-s, rather than erroneously tying the relative clause to the overt pronoun aÇtoÂ, aprnm-s+. The simplified tag for this relative construction (Matthew 10.42) is again (-aprnm-s).

Although a number of interesting antecedents could be cited, we will mention only one. In 1Timothy 6.10 filargur°a is an apparent antecedent to the following relative clause. Actually, only a component of the word is antecedent, ‡rgÀrion. To indicate this working analysis gives the relative pronoun Öv the tag aprgf-s^apdgn-s&aprgn-s to indicate that filargur°a and the semantic antecedent ‡rgÀrion are different. Note the change in gender represented in the complex tag. Very rarely do we indicate gender assimilation. The appropriate simplified tag for this relative is aprgf-s, indicating the presence of the antecedent as a component of the preceding noun.

g. Relative pronouns may function quite differently from the ways already presented. In some cases (e.g. ‡nq@ ön and f@ £) the relative pronoun, together with the preceding preposition, acts as a conjunction of sorts. Because this involves two words, we do not indicate conjunction status for the relative pronoun. We do, however, mark it as a pronoun (e.g. aprgn-p^npgn3p). The relative pronoun and its governing preposition together conjoin two clauses. Examples are Luke 1.20, Philippians 4.10 and Acts 12.23.

A related case is phrases like êson crçnon, which join two clauses (e.g. Mark 2.19) and express extent or duration. Semantically crçnon has been incorporated into the relative clause. Crçnon is accusative of time during which; êson identifies the time that is meant. The relative is tagged apram-s+.

h. Relative pronouns may also function as demonstrative pronouns: for example, oÅv (apram-p^apdam-p) d™ … (Acts 27.44). With few exceptions the relative pronoun is in this case followed by m™n or d™. The exceptions are not translated in the usual way, "some this … some that," but, as in 1 Timothy 3.16, "he." In this verse Paul may be quoting an early Christian hymn, an earlier stanza of which referred to Christ.

Our working analyses for relatives without antecedents usually consist of three simple tags, as noted above. When a relative pronoun is without an antecedent and is immediately preceded by a preposition, either the implied antecedent is the object of the preposition or it is not. There are two cases of this.

As for the first case, two subtypes exist. In subtype a, illustrated by 1 Corinthians 10.30, the preposition governs both the implied antecedent and the relative pronoun: "… because of that for which…." A full surface structure reflecting the semantic structure might have been, … blasfjmoÂmai Ãpšr ›ke°nou Ãpšr oÆ gñ eÇcaristò. Not repeating an identical (or even a related) preposition is common in language, if not required. In subtype b the preposition governs only the supplied antecedent, not the relative. For example, the frequent œwv oÆ receives the working analysis aprgm-s^apdgm-s&aprdm-s, representing the semantic structure "until that time at which…." ©Ewv governs only the supplied antecedent, "that time." The relative pronoun is not governed by œwv, though it is attracted to it in case. Semantically its case is dative, "time at which."

The antecedent to be supplied is sometimes, as noted above, not the object of the preposition. It is not governed by the preposition. A good example is: oÆtçv stin Ãpšr oÆ ... (John 1.30). The semantic structure, then, is: "This is that one concerning whom…." There is no easy working-analysis schema by which to indicate that the antecedent is not governed by Ãpšr. In any case notice that the supplied antecedent is nominative. The simplified tag is again -aprgm-s.

After referring to John 1.30 it is appropriate to say that there is a semantic distinction between the nearly identical cases of needing to supply an antecedent in the tag and already having an overt antecedent. These cases occur with e¸m°. John 1.30 seems to say "This one is that one concerning whom I said," not "There exists this one concerning whom I said…." In Luke 13.30, however, no antecedent other than žscatoi is needed; none is supplied. It says, "There are last ones who will be first," not "The ones who will be first are [now] last." An analysis of relatives must reflect this difference. One is a statement of equivalence ("X is Y," "X equals Y"), the other of existence ("X is," "X exists"). The tag for Luke 13.30 is simply aprnm-p.

Relatives are often attracted to the antecedent (even if it is missing) in case, gender, and number. Our analysis reflects this for case, but not necessarily for number and gender. In the phrase lçgou oÆ … eºpon (John 15.20), the relative is attracted to the case of its antecedent and is tagged aprgm-s^apram-s. We have not indicated "discrepancies" for number and gender, whether they involve attraction, anticipation, or some other explanation, because there is a high degree of correlation between the grammatical discrepancy and the semantic meaning. For example, grammatical gender is frequently overridden by natural gender, as in t™kna (neuter) mou, oÅv (masculine) … (Galatians 4.19).

The relatives of our analysis show person, though no morphological distinction is involved. Since relatives as nouns are third person, which among adjectives is indicated by -, we only need to add 1 for first person and 2 for second where relevant. In the example cited immediately above, oÅv is tagged apram2p. Antecedentless first and second person relatives receive a minus preceding the tag. For example, in Romans 6.3 the simplified tag is -aprnm1p, representing a working analysis of aprnm1p^npnm1p&aprnm1p. (See also Philippians 3.15, Galatians 3.27.)

To what may the supplied antecedent in a working analysis relate? In many cases, after some intervening material it relates to an upper clause that follows. ªOv ‰n in Matthew 15.5 relates through the supplied antecedent to the beginning of verse 6, with an extended relative clause intervening. ªO n (also in verse 5), with its supplied antecedent, relates by equivalence to dòron. It is not dòron ë (apran-s), but rather "That thing [supplied antecedent] which you might have gained (is) a gift." Thus -apran-s is the appropriate tag.

In other cases an antecedent is supplied that is consistent with the meaning of the verse, but that is never tied in with the sentence itself. For example, Matthew 23.16 quotes the blind guides as saying ëv ‰n …. There is clearly no antecedent, preceding or following, but this relative clause sets up an identity. That identity is never tied down, however, for the sentence then comments on the action of swearing rather than on the one who swears. The antecedent is left hanging. Thus the working analysis is aprnm-s^apdnm-s&aprnm-s rather than the simple relative tag, which implies an antecedent and a tie-in with the sentence. Again, we simplify this to -aprnm-s.

Let us conclude by summarizing our analyses of relatives: l (a). Simple relative tag, e.g. apran-s. This says there is a preceding antecedent. 2 (b, f², f³). Simple relative tag with plus sign, e.g. apran-s+. This says that there is an antecedent but that it is to the right of the relative pronoun. 3 (c, d). Simple relative adjective, e.g. a-ran-s. This says that the following word is either without upper clause and (therefore) antecedent or that there is a preceding antecedent of which the following word is a copy or repetition. 4 (e, f¹). A simplified relative tag, -apran-s (token taken from example e with working analysis of apran-s^apdan-s&apran-s.) This says that an antecedent is missing grammatically but is to be supplied in the tag. 5 (g). Relative used as pronoun, e.g. apran-s^npan3s. This says either that the relative serves as a pronoun in one clause and does not relate two clauses, or that with a preceding preposition the relative acts as a conjunction. 6 (h). Relative used as a demonstrative, e.g. apran-s^apdan-s. This is usually a "some this … some that" construction. 7. Another kind of relative, one not yet mentioned, is the totally reduced relative that is being used adverbially (see, e.g. Hebrews 10.37). Since it has an antecedent, it has the simple relative tag.

Let us also review the three situations in which the tag of the relative pronoun has a plus sign: 1 (b), that in which the upper clause is preceding and out of which the antecedent is incorporated into the relative clause; 2 (f²), that in which the upper clause follows the relative clause and contains the semantic antecedent of the relative; 3 (f³), that which is correlative, in which toÂto or an equivalent follows the relative clause either to be the antecedent (by one analysis) or to focus and emphasize a preceding and supplied antecedent (by another analysis).

7.7 Indefinite Adjectives

Much less complex than relative adjectives are indefinite adjectives. These are limited to reflexes of t±v and t±.

A reflex of t±v and t± can either stand alone as its own pronoun (api) or it can modify some substantive as a-i. Though our text follows the fourth revised and corrected edition of The Greek New Testament, in matters of accenting we have analyzed an occasional indefinite or interrogative as either. Indefinites, by their very meaning, cannot be first or second person, so each one is marked - in the person slot to indicate third person.

7.8 Interrogative Adjectives

Interrogatives are included in the adjective system because they can modify substantives in the same way that other members of the adjective system can. This category is populated by t°v and t° as well as any other adjective that asks a question. Our analysis puts interrogatives (when t°v) with relatives in that they may be first or second person in addition to unmarked third person. In sÁ t°v eº (Romans 9.20; 14.4), t°v is tagged aptnm2s. Of course there is no morphological reason to do this. And in a sense interrogatives are, like indefinites, unspecified. As indefinites leave identity to some degree unspecified, so do interrogatives, which is the very reason that question is asked. We chose to include the person analysis (1, 2, -), however, in order to distinguish the person subtypes in the concordance based on this text.

The interrogative versus indefinite status of pou and pwv, like that of tiv and ti, is determined by accent. When the context supports either interpretation rather than only one, we have indicated this, e.g. Romans 8.24: t°v (aptnm-s!apinm-s).

7.9 Demonstrative Adjectives

Demonstratives include both the usual, explicit demonstratives and those that are only functionally so (like the posited antecedents of relatives). A demonstrative may be a modifier or a substantive. If it modifies a substantive, it must be tagged a-d. If it stands alone, whether as subject, predicate, or anything else, it must have the tag apd, that is, "this/that/such a (thing/person/one)." Demonstratives are only marked as third person. Though from an English point of view they sometimes function adverbially, they receive no functional tags. In this respect, they are like regular adjectives and regular nouns.

7.10 Comparative and Superlative Adjectives

Comparatives and superlatives must be that by form, and they must be comparative, superlative, or elative by meaning. Some adjectives are comparative in meaning but not in form (e.g. perissçv). The third position in their tags is left in the positive degree (-). And some adjectives are comparative in form but not in meaning (e.g. presbÀterov when used as an official title, "elder"). These also are left in the positive degree. Pròtov is not tagged as superlative, nor deÀterov as comparative.

7.11 Regular Adjectives

All adjectives that are not numbers and are not relative, indefinite, interrogative, demonstrative, comparative, or superlative are regular, descriptive adjectives. They receive a hyphen in the third place of their tag. They also all receive a hyphen in the sixth (person) place of the tag, except possessive adjectives, whose meaning is itself first or second person. The possessive adjectives are reflexes of mçv, Óm™terov, sçv, and Ãm™terov. We have given them person designations according to their meaning. For example, mþ is tagged a--dm1s in John 8.31. The 1 follows from the first-person meaning of the form. Other adjectives are not analyzed with 1 or 2 where otherwise appropriate, though they might have been. For example, p€ntev (1 Corinthians 8.1) might be expected to be ap-nm1p in our analysis, but is instead ap-nm-p.

When a particular form of an adjective gives us leeway as to gender, we select the gender of the substantive to be supplied. Thus where in John 2.10 anarthrous ˆrti serves as a substantive, we tag it feminine because we assume the missing substantive to be ôra; thus for example, œwv (pg) ˆrti (ab^ap-gf-s).