The Analysis of Adverbs

Adverbs take the analysis tag ab. Adverbs with the ending -wv or other formal adverbial characteristics are analyzed ab. So are those that are formally other parts of speech but that are used as adverbs. KÀklû, for example, shows adverbial use (ab) in Luke 9.12, whereas in Revelation 4.6 it is prepositional (pg); its historical form is, of course, a dative noun, though now frozen in both form and function as an adverb. On the other hand, anarthrous nouns used adverbially are generally and simply analyzed as nouns; for example, nuktçv (n-gf-s). (Nouns with articles used adverbially similarly retain their formal analysis, but for an additional reason: as more than a single lexical unit they are phrasal, something that does not receive a functional tag in our analysis.)

The close connection of adverbs to adjectives deserves special mention. Adjectives used adverbially are simply marked ab in our analysis. In the usual case these are neuter accusative forms (apparently analogous to the accusative of specification of noun forms); for example, mçnon (ab) (and not ap-an-s^ab). For a few adjectives the nominative form may be used adverbially; for example eÇqÀv, formally ap-nm-s, is simply tagged ab when functionally an adverb.

Adverbs sometimes function like adjectives, whether attributive or substantival, an example being Ãperl°an, potentially ab^a--gm-p, e.g. 2 Corinthians 11.5. In fact, we give such adverbs simply an ab tag. An exception to this, however, are adverbs functioning substantivally when they stand anarthrously in the place of objects of prepositions; for example, œwv (pg) ˆrti (ab^ap-gf-s) (1 John 2.9). (The reason for this analysis is that there is no determiner on whose tag to place the usual plus sign; the other anarthrous exception is p l j s ° o n , when meaning "neighbor" and not "nearby.") DeÂro and deÂte are either ab^vm or, in one case, ab (Romans 1.13). Improper prepositions are properly adverbs. Rather than ab^pg, we tag them simply pg. See list 2 below for a listing of these. Though the basic distinction between pg and ab is that, with a pg a noun (phrase) follows, it is quite possible for an ab to be followed by a noun; for example, ‡x°wv to kur°ou (Colossians 1.10).

In addition to the simple adverbs just presented, we recognize the following more finely tuned subtypes: relative adverbs (abr), indefinite adverbs (abi), interrogative adverbs (abt), comparative adverbs (abm), superlative adverbs (abs), and ordinal adverbs (abo). Relative adverbs are really a special subtype of conjunction and are explained below in 10.3. The indefinite adverbs are pot™, poÀ, pðpote, and pðv. The interrogative adverbs include ³nat°, lem€, êti, pçqen, pos€kiv, pçte, pçteron, poÂ, pòv, and t°. Interrogative adverbs may function as interrogative substantival adjectives following a preposition; for example, œwv (pg) pçte (abt^aptgm-s) (Matthew 17.17). Comparative adverbs are tagged abm (e.g. m‚llon). Superlative adverbs (abs) are limited to three: m€lista, Ôdista and t€cista. abm and abs are employed even when the word might be used elatively rather than as a comparison.

The words which we have analyzed as ordinal adverbs are pròton, deÀteron, and tr°ton, and in a single case (Romans 10.19), pròtov (abo/a-onm-s). Tr°ton is analyzed adjectivally in a single instance, Luke 20.12: abo/apoam-s.