The Analysis of Conjunctions

Our analysis of conjunctions and particles probably diverges farthest from traditional expectations. Some words commonly considered conjunctions and particles should be, by one reckoning or another, adverbs, prepositions, interjections, interrogatives, adjectives, and verbs. To further complicate matters, a given word may function now in one respect and now in another. Lists 3 and 5 below summarize the words we count as conjunctions and particles, showing their other possible uses and their distribution in our system. For a word to be included on these lists it must occur at least once as a particle or conjunction, and not just derivatively (that is, ^x).

The propositions of language do not all carry the same weight. Because we have differing messages to convey and because not everything we have to say is of equal importance, some of our statements are more central to our message, others more peripheral. Some are more prominent, others less prominent. The structure of language is quite discoverable, allowing us to separate the irreducible core from the nonprimary information. Propositions are related to one another, X to Y, Y to Z, and so forth. One means for relating them is grammatical conjunctions, and this is a very important means in a language like Koine Greek. Keep in mind that two propositions can be related in the same way either by a conjunction or by nothing: (a) "It’s going to be a good year for farmers. The spring rains were abundant." (b) "It’s going to be a good year for farmers because the spring rains were abundant." Also remember that one conjunction can signal more than one relationship: (a) "He died that I might live;" (b) "He said that I should go." In a the conjunction denotes purpose, in b simply the content of the verb say.

10.1 Coordinate, Subordinate, and Superordinate Conjunctions

Although there is a finite set of interpropositional relations, which Callow discusses in Man and Message, we have limited ourselves to those expressed by conjunctions. Rather than name each relevant relation as encountered, we have instead identified each conjunction by its clause’s level of prominence relative to the adjacent clause. Traditionally grammar has recognized just two relationships: a structure coordinate with another and a structure subordinate to another. Our analysis differs in two significant respects. First, we complete the logical possibilities by adding a third relationship, a structure superordinate to another. (Coordination is indicated by a c in the second place of a conjunction tag; subordination by s, and superordination by h (for hyperordination).) A conjunction tagged superordinate introduces a clause that is more prominent than the one to which it relates. The latter, then, is subordinate to the clause headed by the superordinating conjunction. Because a subordinate clause may not have a conjunction to label cs, our policy of tagging the conjunction of superordinate clauses ch insures that the relationship is specified wherever possible. Second, the relationships indicated by our conjunction analyses are semantic, not grammatical. This means that the tags for some conjunctions will signal relationships that have nothing to do with traditional grammatical considerations. For example, g€r has usually been considered a coordinating conjunction. However, semantically the clause that supplies a cause or reason is subordinate to the clause it explains. Therefore we have, except for several instances, marked g€r cs. In the variant instances, we have marked it qs. D™ is also traditionally held to be a coordinating conjunction (or sometimes just a particle). We have given it varying tags (cc, ch, and cs), depending on its use in particular contexts.

Other relational regularities will emerge as the definitions are compared. For example, result (regardless of which conjunction expresses it) is always ch; whether the relationship is means-result or reason-result, the result half of the relation is more prominent. Similarly purpose is always cs, being subordinate to the action it describes.

10.2 An Overview of Conjunctions and Contrasting Definitions

After giving an overview of conjunctions, we will discuss some subregularities and then give definitions for each conjunction in each possible analysis. List 3 contains every Greek word we have analyzed as a conjunction. This list allows one to see at a glance which conjunctions have which relational possibilities. Some conjunctions can signal any of the three relationships, others two. They can be compared to a "purple stoplight," which would alert us in a general way but would force us to stop and look right and left in order to know for sure the meaning of the signal. Conjunctions that signal multiple relationships do little more than direct us to the context for the meaning of the signal. Our analysis of each such conjunction helps one understand the contextual semantics. The list of conjunctions also supplies any other nonconjunction analyses these words may have, which is also important information. At the end of list 3 are words that contain conjunction analyses but are instances of crasis. Also included are tags that reflect the adverbial analysis of ka°.

10.3 A Subset of Conjunctions: Conjunctions That Are Also Relatives

One of the subregularities of conjunctions is the rather large subset of them that may have, as an alternate analysis, the tag abr. The original motivation for this tag came from two kinds of constructions in which oÆ and ête figure. When the entire clause is a temporal adverbial clause to a main clause, it sometimes has no particular word in the main clause with which to tie in. For example, in Galatians 2.11 Paul says, "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face." The "when" clause relates directly to the main verb oppose as the time when this action took place. But sometimes there is a particular noun in the main clause to which ête or oÆ relates. In Romans 2.16 Paul says certain things will happen "in the day when God judges." Here ête has a specific antecedent, day. In the first construction ête is analyzed as cs because the temporal clause is subordinate semantically to the main clause. In the second construction it is tagged abr because it relates one clause to another through a nominal antecedent, and because, being temporal, it is adverbial.

Having noticed this regularity where we could have expected to find it, we noticed it in many other places as well. One example is John 20.9 involving êti: "They [the disciples] did not yet know the scripture that it was necessary for him [Jesus] to rise from the dead." The sentence could have concluded with scripture; the thought would have been complete. But more identification was needed, so John quoted the particular scripture he had in mind. ©Oti is to John 20.9, then, what ête is to Romans 2.16.

A number of objections might be raised to this conclusion. First, time and place are well considered adverbial, but can êti be so considered? We make two comments in reply. First, the analogical patterning is much more important to us than exact correspondence. In focus here is a relationship with antecedents, not one without. Second, though adverbs usually modify verbs (hence the name ad-verbs), they can also modify nouns. Adverbial ka° does so often; for example, "Saul, even Paul, said…" (Acts 13.9).

A second objection is that the antecedent can usually be deleted with no loss to the meaning of the sentence because the êti clause can move into its place. The antecedent "scripture" is secondary, then, and the êti clause primary. We have no quarrel with that analysis, though the two appear to us to be equivalent. The abr tag shows that two items are nearly if not always equivalent. Indeed, when êti is abr it might be defined "namely, that is, I mean to say."

A further comment about the cs (or ch or cc) and abr pairing is needed. For a conjunction to be tagged abr as well, it must follow its antecedent. This eliminates cases like these: "Where (oÆ) the Spirit of the Lord is, there (——) is freedom" (2 Corinthians 3.17). "Where (êpou) there is a dead body, there (ke²) the vultures will gather" (Luke 17.37). Only once when no overt antecedent exists have we allowed abr rather than cs: in Matthew 2.9, where the preposition in the phrase p€nw oÆ demands an object. We analyze oÆ as -abr. It has the fuller sense of abr^apdgm-s&abr.

10.4 Other Subsets of Conjunctions

Another feature of conjunctions is that ˆcri, œwv, and m™cri may also be prepositions. They are prepositions when they are followed by a noun or relative person, conjunctions when they relate to the following verb.

See list 4 for definitions of those words that may have two or more different tags, where at least one of them is a conjunction by analysis. The words are organized alphabetically, as are the several possible tags for each word. For any conjunction needing expanded comment, a note follows the list of definitions, which keeps the latter as concise as possible.

10.5 The Conjunction d™

Some questions are raised by these conjunctions and their definitions. We will deal with these by giving extensive examples of d™, the discussion of which should serve to contrast our three designations: superordinating, coordinating, and subordinating.

Traditionally d™ has been called a coordinating conjunction, and it often is. It occurs, for example, between items in lists: "And it was he who appointed mšn (cc) some as apostles, dš (cc) some as prophets, dš (cc) some as evangelists, dš (cc) some as pastors and teachers" (Ephesians 4.11). It occurs at the beginning of new incidents in narrative: "From then on Jesus began to preach, ‘Repent! The kingdom of the heavens is near.’ Dš (cc) as he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers" (Matthew 4.17-18). It occurs between arguments that lead to the same conclusion: "You approve of what your fathers did, since mšn (cc) they killed them dš (cc) you build [their tombs]" (Luke 11.48). And so forth throughout the New Testament.

But d™ also occurs many times between members, the preceding one of which is subordinate to the following one, and in such occurrences we say d™ is superordinating. It occurs, for example, between a reason and its result: "Each of them heard them speaking in his own language. Dš (ch) they were amazed" (Acts 2.6-7). It occurs between a concession and its contraexpectation: "All discipline, at the time it is administered, seems to produce sorrow not joy; dš (ch) it later yields the wholesome crop of righteousness" (Hebrews 12.11). It occurs between a ground and the exhortation it supports: "If anyone washes himself clean from these things, he will be an implement to be proud of, set apart, useful to the owner, readied for any good work. Dš (ch) run away from the desires that tempt young people" (2 Timothy 2.21-22). It occurs between a negative statement and the positive statement it emphasizes: "There is no created thing that escapes his notice, dš (ch) all things are naked and exposed to his eyes" (Hebrews 4.13). It occurs between an event or utterance and an utterance that responds to it: "He said to them, ‘And you, who do you say I am?’ Dš (ch) Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’" (Matthew 16.15-16). Among larger units of discourse, it occurs at the beginning of a summary: "Dš (ch) the summary of what is being said:…" (Hebrews 8.1). And it occurs in many instances of contrast in which the first member obviously serves to emphasize the second: "Mšn (cs) Moses was faithful in all God’s house for a testimony of what was going to be said, dš (ch) Christ as a son over his house" (Hebrews 3.5-6).

D™ even occurs a few times between members, the succeeding one of which supports the preceding ones and in these instances we say dš is subordinating. It occurs between a result and a reason for that result: "I am willing for all of you to speak in tongues, but I prefer that you prophesy; dš (cs) a person who prophesies is more helpful than one who speaks in tongues, unless he translates" (1 Corinthians 14.5). It occurs between a statement and a ground for that statement: "[An overseer must be] one who leads his own family well, with children who obey him with full dignity; dš (cs) if someone doesn’t know how to lead his own family, how will he take care of God’s church?" (1 Timothy 3.4-5). It occurs between an exhortation and a ground for it: "Repent! Dš (cs) if you don’t, I will come to you suddenly and make war against them" (Revelation 2.16). It occurs between a negative and a positive statement, the negative of which is obviously more important to the context: "They prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit, since he had not yet fallen on any of them: dš (cs) they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8.15-16). It occurs at the beginning of a brief mention of minor participants: "Dš (cs) the men who were walking the road with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one" (Acts 9.7). It occurs at the beginning of a parenthetical remark: "(dš [cs] what does ‘He ascended’ mean except…?)" (Ephesians 4.9-10). It occurs at the beginning of an author’s aside: "Dš (cs) what I’m writing to you, look, before God, I’m not lying" (Galatians 1.20). It occurs at the beginning of a clause that mentions the number of people present at an event: "Dš (cs) there were about five thousand men who ate, besides women and children" (Matthew 14.21). It occurs (especially in John’s Gospel) at the beginning of background information inserted within a narrative: "Dš (cs) there were six stone waterpots that had been placed there…" (John 2.6). It occurs at the beginning of something the author has inserted to avoid misinterpretation of what he has just said: "For he set all things under his feet. Dš (cs) it is clear that when he says that he set all things under him, that leaves out the one who subjected all things to him" (1 Corinthians 15.27). It occurs at the beginning of a clarification: "They found me purified in the temple, … dš (cs) some Jews from the province of Asia did, and they should have appeared before you and accused me if they had anything against me" (Acts 24.18-19). And it occurs between members of a contrast, the more important of which comes first: "Love never becomes irrelevant. Dš (cs) as for prophecies, they will be shelved; as for tongues…" (1 Corinthians 13.8).

In some instances we have tagged d™ either cc/ch or cc/cs, either because there are different interpretations of the passage or because we ourselves are unsure which of the two members of a contrast is more prominent. One instance of the former case is 1 Corinthians 1.12, in which different parties are listed: HEgñ m™n (cc) e¸mi PaÀlou, HEgñ dš (cc) HApollò, HEgñ dš (cc) Kjf‚, HEgñ dš (cc/ch) CristoÂ. The coordinating interpretation sees four parties, equal choices. The superordinating interpretation sees three parties upstaged by the fourth, "Christ’s party," implying that everyone else should, like Paul, be in that party.

10.6 Conjunctions with Sentential Noun Clauses

Sentential noun clauses are sentences that function as particular grammatical parts of other sentences. In the sentence "I want to go," the sentence "I go" is the object of the verb "want." (Certain rules delete the equivalent pronoun and infinitize the verb.) In "To live in the tropics is not easy," the sentence "Someone lives in the tropics" is the subject of "is not easy." Greek has similar constructions with infinitives and with conjunctions. Here we are interested only in those constructions in which the sentential noun clause is marked by a conjunction. Our definitions of conjunctions and the accompanying examples show that the following can serve to relate sentential noun clauses to the host or "upper" sentence: e¸, ´na, ka°, mÐ, mÐpote, êpwv, êti, pòv, and óv. Many of these apparently become sentential-noun-clause conjunctions by serving as speech orienters. Questions, commands, and statements (direct and indirect) can serve as the content, or object, of a verb of saying. It seems obvious that these were then extended to be sentential-noun-clause conjunctions of a wider sort by grammatical analogy with their content functions. As conjunctions of this type, it seems clear that they are not fully interchangeable. Each contributes its own narrower grammatical (if not lexical) meaning to the sentence in which it connects a sentential noun clause.

Semantically the verb is the nucleus of the sentence. Nouns and other grammatical parts of speech are important only as they relate to the verb. Nouns, then, are in a subordinate relationship to the verb. But if that is true, why do we call sentential noun clauses coordinate by so analyzing their head conjunction? Simply because the sentential noun clause itself contains a verb. As a sentence in itself, it is as prominent as the rest of its upper sentence. Hence such noun clauses are analyzed as cc.

There are some exceptions to this, however. In the ka± g™neto construction with following ka°, the main verb g™neto is so colorless, contributes so little (see the corresponding construction in Hebrew of which this is presumed to be a translation), that we have analyzed the following connecting ka° as ch (see e.g. Matthew 9.10). A clause that identifies either place or time, though by one argument a sentential noun clause, retains the cs analysis on the ground that an adverbial temporal or locative clause is more peripheral, less prominent, than the more nuclear sentential subjects or objects.

Nor is a sentential noun clause analyzed as cc with certain discourse verbs (e.g. "say, hear, ask") and their first cousins, "think, see, believe." These verbs are the orienters of their content, and they are important only insofar as they relate their content to the rest of the discourse. The content is naturally more prominent than its orienter, so there are many instances of "… êti (ch)." A number of factors, however, can raise the orienter to a level of prominence equal to that of its content, the effect of which is to tag the conjunction cc. We discuss these now.

One factor is the presence of ‡mÐn, ‡ljqòv, or p€ntwv, or any other adverb in the orienter: "Truly I say to you that (cc)…" (Matthew 16.28). An adverbial phrase, especially a prepositional phrase, will do the same: "Therefore (di toÂto) I say to you that (cc)…" (e.g. Matthew 21.43). However, an object put periphrastically in a prepositional phrase does not give the orienter a prominence equal to that of its content: "He said to her (= he told her) that (ch)…" (Luke 1.61). Oath-formulas in the orienter raise its semantic prominence: "But God is faithful that (cc)…." (2 Corinthians l.l8; see also v. 23).

Verbs can be considered semantically strong or weak. Weak verbs are those that are so regular and expected as to draw no attention to the orienter. They include l™gw/eºpon, ér€w, ‡koÀw, ginðskw, and oºda (and their participles). If nothing else raises the orienter, the content clauses will be analyzed as ch. All other verbs are considered strong, calling attention to themselves and thus to the orienter; the content-clause conjunction is tagged cc. HEpiginðskw, a compound of ginðskw, is a strong verb. Negation also raises the orienter in prominence: Romans 2.4 "… not realizing (‡gnoòn, a strong verb) that (cc)…."

The mention of Scripture, prophet, etc., gives an orienter prominence. Any overt subject, whether a simple pronoun or a noun expanded by a string of modifiers, will give prominence to the orienter, on the ground that the unmarked, neutral orienter will be marked for person only on the verb: "Jesus said to them that (cc)…"(Mark 2.17). This also applies to the agent phrase if the verb is passive: "It was said by some that (cc)…" Luke 9.7. Because participles do not have overt subjects, the overt subject of a main clause located between a participle and its content raises the prominence of the participial orienter clause. Only the second of the following two examples qualifies by this rule: "Jesus seeing that (ch)…" (Mark 12.34) and "Seeing Jesus that (cc)…" (Mark 9.25).

Further, the orienter is raised in prominence if the semantic meaning is other than a declaration. This includes questions based on an indicative verb as well as all nonindicative moods. The infinitive is included because we take the main finite verb as semantically adverbial. Thus, "He began to speak to them…."

An object, whether noun or pronoun, does not affect the orienter’s status. Neither does the case of an indirect object as long as it is a pronoun. The naming or identification of the indirect object by a noun, however, does increase the orienter’s prominence.

In the few cases when the content is in apposition to something in the orienter clause, the orienter is raised in prominence. This cannot be ascertained only by looking at a conjunction’s tag, however, because in these cases where there is a wide variety of kinds of apposition, the conjunction tag is abr. The orienter item to which the content is in apposition is the antecedent; thus the tag abr. These include apposition to toÂto, œn, lçgov, ¿Òma, nçmov, dika°wma, ÷f™leia, fwnÐ. "He was telling them a parable that (abr)…"(Luke 5.36); this example might also be termed genre identification.

A split clause gives prominence to an orienter: "Concerning the dead that (cc) they are raised, have you not read…?" (Mark 12.26). Here the orienter verb follows the sentential object while part of the orienter clause precedes it. One very special type of split clause, called raising, takes a noun phrase out of the lower, content clause and makes it part of the upper, orienter clause: "For I made known to you, brothers, the gospel I preached that it is not of human type" (Galatians 1.11). Here "the gospel I preached" is semantically the subject of the content clause. It has been raised for emphasis and becomes the object of the orienter-clause verb. This phenomenon, quite common in both Greek and English, serves to give the orienter equal prominence with the content. It should be noted that a raised noun phrase cannot be an antecedent for the following clause. The tag is cc, not abr.

MÐ as cs is understood to be a negative-purpose conjunction: "Watch out that you don’t [or lest you] fall" (1 Corinthians 10.12). In a few places mÐ can instead be understood as qn, with the verb that follows being taken as a subjunctive used as an imperative. Luke 21.8 can be read either as "Watch out that you are not led astray" (mÑ as cs) or as "Watch out! Don’t be led astray!" (mÑ as qn). We have uniformly analyzed mÐ in these ambiguous cases as cs.

For comments on rhetorical questions, see the analysis of particles that follows.