Clause Boundaries
**Steps 1 and 3.** Identify the working text and its source. PT1904 is the project’s teaching text; named comparison editions can inform a textual question. Parse viable alternative readings when needed rather than postponing all syntax until textual certainty (Chapters 74–75).
Delimit **predications** using predicates, participants, dependency and context. Finite verbs are useful anchors, but Greek also has non-finite and verbless predications. Coordination can link words, phrases or clauses; a conjunction is not an automatic boundary. Connectives such as καί, δέ, γάρ and οὖν contribute different grammatical or discourse relations. Subordinators and relatives offer further clues. Printed punctuation reflects editorial analysis and should be checked against the construction.
In Matthew 1:22, **γέγονεν** heads the main predication and **πληρωθῇ** the ἵνα-dependent predication. Within the latter, **τὸ ῥηθέν** is a nominal participial expression with its own dependent phrases. Do not flatten that internal structure into a list of dependents of πληρωθῇ.
**Matthew 1:22 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου …
The main/dependent boundary is before ἵνα. The excerpt stops before λέγοντος; it is not the complete verse.
Main Verb
**Steps 2 and 4.** Locate finite verbs and identify the clauses in which they function. Then examine non-finite predicates, copular constructions, coordination and ellipsis. A sentence need not contain exactly one finite main verb: it can coordinate main clauses or contain a predication without an overt finite verb.
A **clause head** is assigned under an analytical convention. In the ordinary verbal clauses used here, the lexical predicate provides a useful anchor. Dependency frameworks differ in their treatment of auxiliaries, copulas and coordination; some make a nonverbal predicate the head of a copular clause. A single root in a tree is a property of that representation, not proof that every sentence has one finite main verb.
In Romans 5:8, **συνίστησι** is the matrix finite predicate, while **ἀπέθανε** is the finite predicate inside the ὅτι clause. The present active indicative parse of συνίστησι is morphological; its matrix role is syntactic; “demonstrates” is a contextual lexical rendering, not an aspect label.
**Romans 5:8 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** συνίστησι δὲ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεός, ὅτι ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανε.
Subject
**Step 5.** Identify the subject of each predication using agreement, case, construction and context. Finite clauses commonly have nominative subjects; an unexpressed subject’s person and number may be indicated by the verb, but its identity requires context. Agreement has constructional qualifications, including neuter plural subjects with singular verbs (Chapter 52).
Postverbal subjects are possible without assuming displacement or a particular focus. In John 3:16a, **ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεός** has verb–subject order. In Romans 5:8, **ὁ Θεός** follows the object phrase. Describe that order first; a claim about topic or focus needs discourse evidence (Chapters 64–65).
**Subject** is a grammatical function; **agent** is a semantic role. Active subjects are not always agents: a subject can experience, undergo or occupy a state. In Matthew 1:22, τὸ ῥηθέν is the subject of πληρωθῇ. The phrase ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου identifies the speaker associated with **ῥηθέν**, not an explicitly expressed agent of πληρωθῇ.
**John 3:16a — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον
**John 11:35 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
Objects
**Step 6.** Identify **objects and other complements** through lexical valency, case and construction (Chapters 42 and 50–51). This chapter uses *complement* broadly enough to include a selected object; a predicative complement is one particular type.
Direct objects are often accusative, but that is not an exhaustive definition of objecthood. Recipient expressions can use a dative or another construction. Some predicates license two objects or an object plus a predicative complement. Selected participants can be unexpressed when context permits, so “optional = adjunct” is not a reliable rule.
In John 3:16a, **τὸν κόσμον** is the direct object of ἠγάπησεν. In Romans 5:8, **τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην** is the object of συνίστησι; the reflexive genitive modifies ἀγάπην. The different forms and roles of their subjects must be analyzed separately.
**John 3:16a — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** τὸν κόσμον — direct object of ἠγάπησεν.
**Romans 5:8 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην — direct object of συνίστησι.
Complements
**Step 6, continued.** **Predicative complements** characterize a subject or object: predicate nouns or adjectives occur with appropriate copular or complex-transitive constructions. Distinguish them from direct objects without redefining all complements to exclude objects. Selection and construction matter; overt obligatoriness alone is insufficient.
For a subject complement, compare the predicate nominative in John 1:1c (Chapters 39 and 76). Object complements predicate something of an object, as in the constructed English illustration “they appointed him king”. These labels describe relations, not a universal one-case rule across all clause types.
In Matthew 1:22, **γέγονεν** means “has happened/taken place”; it is an intransitive event predicate here, **not a near-copula requiring a predicate complement**. **Τοῦτο … ὅλον** is its nominative neuter singular subject expression. The nominative analysis is supported by the construction; the verb does not agree with it in case.
**Matthew 1:22 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν — event predicate γέγονεν with its subject, “all this has happened”.
Modifiers
**Step 7.** Determine what each dependent relates to and what contribution it makes. Candidate dependents include genitives, adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, relatives and participial expressions. Not every adjective is an adjunct: a predicative adjective can be a complement. Not every relative clause modifies an overt noun (Chapter 61).
Distinguish **attachment** (which expression a phrase depends on), **scope** (what an expression affects) and **semantic force** (such as manner or degree). A difference in an English gloss is not automatically a different attachment.
In John 3:16a, **οὕτω** relates to the loving predication. “In this way” is a useful rendering in relation to the following giving of the Son; a degree-oriented English rendering must be assessed with the whole οὕτω … ὥστε construction. Manner and magnitude need not be mutually exclusive implications. Morphology alone cannot rank these readings, and calling them possible does not establish equal probability.
In Romans 5:8, **ἑαυτοῦ** modifies ἀγάπην and refers to the subject. The phrase **εἰς ἡμᾶς** can naturally be considered with the love expression (“his love toward us”); compare a verbal attachment rather than presenting the latter as certain.
**John 3:16a — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν
**Romans 5:8 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς — attachment must be justified in context.
Prepositional Phrases
**Step 7, prepositional phrases.** Identify the preposition, its complement and governed case, then test attachment and contextual meaning (Chapter 46). **γάρ is a connective, not a preposition.** Prepositions such as διά, κατά, μετά, παρά, περί, ὑπέρ and ὑπό allow different case constructions; case and preposition contribute together, but neither supplies an invariant English gloss.
In Matthew 1:22, **ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου** and **διὰ τοῦ προφήτου** belong with **ῥηθέν**, “spoken”: the Lord is the speaker and the prophet the intermediary. They are inside the subject expression **τὸ ῥηθέν …**, which depends on πληρωθῇ. Attaching both phrases directly to πληρωθῇ would misrepresent this distinction between speaking and fulfillment.
Here ὑπό + genitive expresses the agent of speaking, and διά + genitive the mediation. These prepositions also have other uses; “ultimate agent” is not an automatic theological hierarchy encoded wherever ὑπό occurs.
In Romans 5:8, **ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν** relates to Christ’s dying and is rendered “for/on behalf of us”. Further theological implications require argument beyond the preposition alone. Test the attachment of εἰς ἡμᾶς as described in §77.6.
**Matthew 1:22 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου
**Romans 5:8 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανε.
Participial Constructions
**Step 8, participles.** Parse the form, then analyze its construction (Chapters 37–38). An **attributive** participle modifies a nominal head; a **substantival** participial expression occupies a nominal role without an expressed head noun. The isolated expression ὁ ἀγαπῶν, “the one who loves”, does not demonstrate an attributive participle modifying an expressed noun. Article presence alone does not settle the classification.
Circumstantial participles support contextual temporal, causal, concessive, conditional or other readings. Those relations are not encoded by participial morphology. A **genitive absolute** is prototypically a genitive participial clause with its own subject outside the matrix argument structure; distinct subject reference is common, not exceptionless. A periphrastic analysis requires a genuine verbal construction, not any juxtaposition of εἰμί and a participle. Supplementary participles occur in constructions selected by particular predicates.
In Matthew 1:22, **τὸ ῥηθέν** is a substantival participial expression, nominative neuter singular here, and subject of πληρωθῇ. **ῥηθέν is aorist passive, conventionally assigned to λέγω through its suppletive verbal system, not to λαλέω.** The speaking predication has the two dependent phrases described in §77.7.
In Romans 5:8, **ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν** is a genitive absolute. Its subject reference also occurs in ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; this does not invalidate the construction. If the full Matthew 1:22 is analyzed, its final **λέγοντος** is also a participle to account for; the worked excerpt stops before it.
**Matthew 1:22 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου
**Romans 5:8 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν — contextual temporal setting, with a possible concessive implication.
Infinitival Constructions
**Step 8, infinitives.** Parse tense-form and voice, then identify the construction and its participants (Chapter 36). Infinitives can complement predicates, function in nominal expressions, or occur in purpose, result and reported-discourse constructions. These categories overlap at different analytical levels.
**Articular** describes the presence of an article, not one semantic function. **τοῦ + infinitive** is formally genitival and can serve functions other than purpose. Likewise, **ἐν τῷ + infinitive** often receives a temporal reading, but the full construction determines the relation. ὥστε can introduce an infinitival result construction; it is not itself an article.
An infinitive’s understood subject may be controlled or inferred from context, and an expressed subject can be accusative. Identify the actual governing expression rather than assuming all infinitives depend directly on a finite verb or all indirect discourse uses one pattern.
The four selected worked excerpts contain no infinitive. They therefore illustrate only part of the workflow; consult Chapter 36 for infinitival constructions.
The worked excerpts are John 3:16a, John 11:35, Matthew 1:22 through προφήτου, and Romans 5:8. Their absence of infinitives is not a generalization about the surrounding chapters.
Subordinate Clauses
**Step 9.** Identify the relation between each dependent predication and its context. Conjunctions are clues, not one-to-one semantic codes: **ὅτι** can introduce content or causal explanation, and **ἵνα** occurs in purpose, content and other constructions (Chapter 58). Relative clauses can modify a head or form nominal expressions without an overt antecedent (Chapter 61). Conditional patterns require whole-clause analysis (Chapter 57); temporal and causal/concessive relations are treated in Chapters 59–60.
A **genitive absolute** is a non-finite construction whose adverbial relation is interpreted in context. **Casus pendens** is a detached nominal construction, often resumed later; it is not itself a subordinate-clause type.
In Matthew 1:22, the fulfillment formula supports a **purpose-oriented** reading of ἵνα πληρωθῇ. The subjunctive alone does not prove purpose or exclude every result-oriented interpretation. The grammatical construction and the interpretation of fulfillment should remain distinguishable.
In Romans 5:8, the ὅτι clause explains the demonstration of love. It can be described as explanatory/epexegetic, “in that”, with a causal construal also worth testing. Do not automatically call it a direct object: συνίστησι already has τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην as its object. Within the ὅτι clause, the genitive absolute supplies the setting for ἀπέθανε.
**Matthew 1:22 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** ἵνα πληρωθῇ — dependent fulfillment clause.
**Romans 5:8 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** ὅτι ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανε.
Clause Diagramming
**Worked example A — John 3:16a.** A clause sketch records relations without replacing evidence. The excerpt ends before the following ὥστε clause; its interpretation should nevertheless be checked against the rest of the verse.
**John 3:16a — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον …
| Expression | Analysis |
|---|---|
| οὕτω | Adverb relating to the loving predication; assess its force with what follows |
| γάρ | Postpositive explanatory connective; not a rigid second-word boundary rule |
| ἠγάπησεν | Aorist active indicative, third singular, ἀγαπάω; verbal predicate |
| ὁ Θεός | Nominative singular masculine subject expression |
| τὸν κόσμον | Accusative singular masculine direct object |
The observed sequence is adverb–connective–verb–subject–object. The subject’s position after the verb does not by itself establish contrastive focus or displacement.
**Interpretation and translation.** “For in this way God loved the world …” displays a manner-oriented reading. Evaluate an English “so greatly” rendering against the complete οὕτω … ὥστε construction. These are questions of contextual force, not different case parses; possible readings need not be equally probable. A wooden word-order gloss is not necessary for a faithful translation.
Use the table as an explicit proposal: test each relation against morphology, lexical selection and the wider passage. A representation can be incomplete or wrong even when it looks tidy.
**John 3:16a — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον … — worked example A, excerpt only.
Sentence Diagramming
**Worked example B — John 11:35.** Sentence analysis should account for the words actually present; it does not require inventing an object or a special fronting operation.
**John 11:35 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
| Expression | Analysis |
|---|---|
| ἐδάκρυσεν | Aorist active indicative, third singular, δακρύω; used intransitively here |
| ὁ Ἰησοῦς | Nominative singular masculine subject expression |
The clause has a verb followed by its subject and no expressed object. In a lexical-head dependency representation, Ἰησοῦς depends on ἐδάκρυσεν as subject and ὁ depends on Ἰησοῦς as article. The ordinary translation is **“Jesus wept.”**
The Greek has **three written words**: ἐδάκρυσεν, ὁ, Ἰησοῦς. The English translation has two. Do not derive a claim about Greek rhetoric from the English word count. The clause’s brevity can be discussed in its narrative context, but “a fronted verb” or a special prominence effect needs evidence.
This is a straightforward local syntactic analysis. It does not settle the causes, significance or theological interpretation of the weeping. A complete sentence diagram is one way to record relations, not a requirement that every sentence have the same shape.
**John 11:35 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. — worked example B, complete verse.
Phrase-Marker Analysis
**Phrase-marker analysis** represents constituency: which words or phrases form units and how they are grouped. A constituent can be a single word as well as a larger expression. Phrase-structure frameworks differ about categories, discontinuity and the relation between structure and surface order. If a diagram changes the order of Greek words, the transformation or abstraction must be stated; do not silently turn the verb–subject sequence of John 3:16a into subject–verb order.
**Worked example C — Matthew 1:22, excerpt through προφήτου.**
**Matthew 1:22 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου …
| Expression | Relation and morphology |
|---|---|
| Τοῦτο … ὅλον | Subject of γέγονεν; nominative neuter singular in this construction |
| δέ | Postpositive connective, not part of the nominal subject’s inflection |
| γέγονεν | Perfect active indicative, third singular, γίνομαι; “has happened” |
| ἵνα πληρωθῇ … | Dependent fulfillment predication; πληρωθῇ is aorist passive subjunctive, third singular, πληρόω |
| τὸ ῥηθέν … | Subject expression of πληρωθῇ; ῥηθέν is aorist passive participle, nominative neuter singular here, conventionally lemmatized λέγω |
| ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου | Agent of the speaking expressed by ῥηθέν |
| διὰ τοῦ προφήτου | Intermediary of that speaking; also dependent on ῥηθέν |
The nesting is crucial: the speaking expression and its agent/mediator phrases form the subject of the fulfillment predication; that predication is introduced by ἵνα and related to γέγονεν. The two phrases do not directly identify the fulfiller.
A purpose-oriented translation is **“All this has happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled …”** This rendering exposes the passive structure. Its purposive force is a contextual interpretation of the formula, not an automatic deduction from a subjunctive ending.
The complete verse continues with **λέγοντος**, genitive masculine singular present active participle of λέγω, agreeing with προφήτου and introducing the following speech. It is outside the displayed excerpt, not an unaccounted-for word in a supposed full-verse diagram.
**Matthew 1:22 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου … — worked example C; the excerpt ends before λέγοντος.
Dependency Analysis
**Dependency analysis** links dependents to heads under stated conventions. In a basic dependency tree each non-root word has one head; enhanced representations can encode additional relations. The root need not be a finite verb. Copulas, auxiliaries, coordination and omitted elements require framework-specific treatment. Here we use a simple lexical-head description without claiming to reproduce a particular treebank’s full annotation scheme.
For John 3:16a, a token-level account attaches **ὁ to Θεός**, **τὸν to κόσμον**, and those nominal heads to **ἠγάπησεν** as subject and object. Attaching the articles directly to the verb would contradict that account. Constituency groups expressions; dependency encodes head relations. Both can be useful, but a particular analysis still needs evidence.
**Worked example D — Romans 5:8.**
**Romans 5:8 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** συνίστησι δὲ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεός, ὅτι ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανε.
| Expression | Analysis |
|---|---|
| συνίστησι | Present active indicative, third singular, συνίστημι; matrix predicate |
| ὁ Θεός | Nominative singular masculine subject |
| τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην | Accusative singular feminine object expression; ἑαυτοῦ is reflexive genitive singular, masculine here by reference to the subject |
| εἰς ἡμᾶς | “Toward us”; consider attachment to ἀγάπην and compare verbal attachment |
| ὅτι … ἀπέθανε | Explanatory dependent clause, “in that”; compare a causal construal |
| Χριστός | Nominative singular masculine subject of ἀπέθανε |
| ἀπέθανε | Second aorist active indicative, third singular, ἀποθνῄσκω |
| ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν | Phrase related to the dying, “on behalf of us” |
| ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν | Genitive absolute giving the setting for the dying |
Within the genitive absolute, **ἡμῶν** is the first-person plural genitive subject, **ὄντων** the present active participle of εἰμί, and **ἁμαρτωλῶν** the **genitive plural predicative complement**, conventionally masculine for the human group here. It is not nominative, nor a “predicate nominative in the genitive”. The surface form ἁμαρτωλῶν does not by itself distinguish gender. **ἔτι** means “still”.
The genitive absolute is associated with the dying predication inside the ὅτι clause. “While we were still sinners” states the temporal setting; a concessive implication is contextual. Its participants are also referred to in ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, illustrating why distinct reference is not an absolute rule for this construction.
A natural rendering is **“But God demonstrates his own love toward us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”** The object precedes the subject in Greek, but that fact alone does not prove a topic/focus assignment. The attachment of εἰς ἡμᾶς and the force of ὅτι remain interpretive decisions to justify, not matters settled by the diagram.
The source prints συνίστησι and ἀπέθανε without final movable ν. Forms with final ν are familiar citation or edition variants, but must not be silently substituted inside an exact quotation.
**Romans 5:8 — checked BYZ04/PT1904 excerpt:** συνίστησι δὲ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεός, ὅτι ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανε. — worked example D, complete verse.
Paradigms
The 12-Step Syntactical-Analysis Workflow
A revisable teaching workflow. Textual, morphological, syntactic and interpretive judgments interact; a provisional translation may be tested during analysis. A single finite main verb is not required in every sentence.
| Step | What to examine | Controlling question |
| 1. Identify the working text | Record source and viable alternative readings What wording is being analyzed? | |
|---|---|---|
| 2. Locate finite predicates | Record each finite form and its possible parse Which predications contain finite verbs? | |
| 3. Delimit predications | Include non-finite and verbless structures Where do dependency and context support boundaries? | |
| 4. Identify clause organization | State head conventions; examine coordination and ellipsis What organizes each predication under this analysis? | |
| 5. Identify subjects | Use agreement, construction and contextual reference What is the subject, expressed or understood? | |
| 6. Identify objects and other complements | Use lexical selection and construction What participants or predicative complements are licensed? | |
| 7. Examine modifiers | Test attachment, scope and semantic force separately What does each expression depend on or affect? | |
| 8. Analyze non-finite constructions | Parse and classify participles and infinitives What is the construction and its function here? | |
| 9. Map clause relations | Compare purpose, result, content, explanation and other relations What does the full construction support? | |
| 10. Test discourse explanations | Describe order before claiming topic, focus or prominence What contextual evidence supports the claim? | |
| 11. Compare viable alternatives | Distinguish possibility, probability and certainty Which alternatives remain and why? | |
| 12. Revise and justify the translation | Test provisional renderings against the analysis Does the final rendering reflect the defended analysis? |
Worked Examples — Checked BYZ04/PT1904 Excerpts
Four source-matched teaching examples. Excerpt boundaries are explicit. Source wording was checked against preserved publisher captures; this is not a fresh NA28/UBS5 or manuscript collation.
| Example | Checked text excerpt | What it demonstrates |
| A · John 3:16a | οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον Verb–subject–object sequence within the excerpt; distinguish adverbial force from morphological parsing. | |
|---|---|---|
| §77.11; excerpt ends before ὥστε. | ||
| B · John 11:35 | ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς Intransitive use, subject and article; three Greek words, two in the English translation. | |
| §77.12; complete verse apart from final punctuation. | ||
| C · Matthew 1:22 | Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου … Event predicate; dependent fulfillment clause; agent and intermediary belong with ῥηθέν. | |
| §77.13; excerpt ends before λέγοντος. | ||
| D · Romans 5:8 | συνίστησι δὲ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεός, ὅτι ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανε. Matrix and explanatory predications; genitive absolute; attachment and discourse claims require argument. | |
| §77.14; complete verse. | ||
Chapter glossary
- — syntactical analysis
exegesis
Analysis of how forms combine into phrases and predications and how those units relate. Morphology, lexical information and context inform the analysis; the chapter’s twelve-step method is a revisable teaching workflow, not the definition of syntax.- — 12-step workflow
exegesis
A revisable teaching sequence: identify working text and alternatives; locate finite predicates; delimit predications; identify clause organization; subjects; objects and other complements; modifiers; non-finite constructions; clause relations; discourse; viable alternatives; justified translation. Earlier steps may be revisited.- — main verb / clause head
exegesis
A main verb is a predicate of a main clause. A clause head is assigned under an analytical framework and need not be a finite verb; coordinated and nonverbal structures prevent a universal single-finite-main-verb rule.- — clause boundary
exegesis
The limits of a predication, assessed from predicates, participants, dependency and context. Connectives and punctuation provide clues; finite-verb counting alone cannot delimit non-finite or verbless predications.- — constituent
exegesis
A word or group of words functioning as a structural unit under a constituency analysis. The proposed grouping and hierarchy must be justified; constituents need not contain several words.- — head / dependent
exegesis
A structural relation between a head and a dependent under a stated framework. A basic dependency tree assigns one head to each non-root word; the root is not necessarily a finite verb, and enhanced representations can add relations.- — complement
exegesis
An element selected by a lexical head or predication (e.g. object, predicate nominative, oblique); selected complements may be omitted when context licenses them, so obligatoriness alone is not the definition.- — adjunct
exegesis
A modifier not selected as an argument by the head/valency; adjuncts are often omissible, but surface optionality alone is not the definition and an adjunct may be pragmatically important or necessary.- — agency (passive)
exegesis
Expression of an agent or intermediary in a passive construction. ὑπό with the genitive commonly marks personal agency and διά with the genitive can mark mediation; attachment and contextual meaning must be established, not inferred from a fixed theological hierarchy.- — genitive absolute
exegesis
A genitive participial clause, prototypically with its own genitive subject, standing syntactically outside the matrix clause's argument structure. A distinct subject-reference is common but not an exceptionless requirement.- — clause diagramming
exegesis
A visual representation of proposed clause relations and internal structure. Its conventions should be stated and its claims tested against the text; a diagram does not itself prove the analysis.- — phrase-marker analysis
exegesis
A representation of constituency and hierarchy using phrase categories under a stated framework. Surface word order, discontinuity and any abstract rearrangement must be handled explicitly; constituency and dependency offer different analytical descriptions.- — dependency analysis
exegesis
Analysis of head–dependent relations under stated conventions. Basic trees assign one root and one head per other word, but the root need not be finite or verbal, and framework choices affect copular and coordinated structures.- — analytical layers
exegesis
Distinguishable but interacting domains: morphology describes forms, syntax relations and grouping, semantics meaning, discourse contextual organization, and exegesis reasoned interpretation. Evidence from one domain informs but does not automatically settle the others.