Κύριος εἶπεν πρὸς μέ Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε –> the Lord said to me, My son you are; today I have begotten you

[damaskinos]

[this thread is the continuation of the discussion about Psalm 2:5, here:  https://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php?topic=928571.0]

Now, if I may, there is an additional verse in the same Psalm, using the very same construction, of verb of speaking + prós + accusative. Sorrily, being tired when I wrote the OP, I messed it up and mentioned one verse about Christ as if it was the one meant by the post title (about the impious!). Since the grammar issue is the same, I hope this can be posted here on this same thread. Being otherwise, I may post that as a separate thread. [as you can see, it is already posted as a new thread by the Moderator]

It is about Psalm 2:7 (a few verses below). In Ralphs' Greek: "(διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου) κύριος εἶπεν πρός με υἱός μου εἶ σύ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε." In Brenton's version: "(declaring the ordinance of the Lord:) the Lord said to me, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee." NETS version: "The Lord said to me, 'My son you are; today I have begotten you." Michael Nasser's version, from the LXX but in King James Elizabethan style: "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Actually it was mostly due to this particular verse that I got the impression of a particular emphasis on the receiver of the message [instead of the more usual construction verb of speaking + dative], where the theological context is one of exclusive relation. It is true that the English renderings have no clue of such textual emphasis, besides the theological context within Christian doctrine.

However, Portuguese has in this field some more flexibility and variety of options for emphasis' sake, and after posting the OP, I have found a kind of more emphatic rendering in the Portuguese version by Fr. António Pereira de Figueiredo, that is kind of our Douay-Rheims version: it is the first in Portuguese history translated from the Vulgata, in 18th century (I note that the Vulgata Psaltery actually is based on the LXX and not on the Hebrew text as the remaining OT books, and as such, any translation of the Psaltery from the Vulgata is much closer to the LXX than anyone from the Masoretic text, and very often may be taken as rendered directly from the Greek).

Fr. Figueiredo renders so: "O Senhor disse para mim: Tu és meu Filho, eu te gerei hoje". In Portuguese, the plainer and normative construction would be "O Senhor disse-me" (The Lord said me). For emphasis' sake, there is the much less common redundant construction "O Senhor disse-me a mim" (something untranslatable like "The Lord said me to me"...). In modern European Portuguese, "disse para mim" borders a grammar error, and many today in Portugal would qualify that as such (though that might not be so in the 18th century). It would be harder to explain the grammar and semantic nuance: if I translate the commoner usage back to English, it sounds exactly like the English versions... But I give here the translator's note that explains why the awkward construction: "The Lord said to me, &c.: To me, and not to another; so that we understand that the begetting, and filiation, that is spoken about, is a singular begetting, and filiation, and only proper to Jesus Christ." And the learned comment proceeds on theological controversies that are not relevant to this thread, but highlight the weight of wording choices.

If you allow me some more digression, the Latin Vulgata displays here the same construction of the Greek: "Dixit ad me" (verb + preposition + accusative), while the more usual construction would be, I think, "dixit mihi" (verb + dative). The same happens in the OP verse 5: "τότε λαλήσει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐν ὀργῇ αὐτοῦ", and the Latin is "Tunc loquetur ad eos in ira sua".

Actually, verse 7 is where one may find a stronger claim for an especial emphasis on the πρός με, due to the theological context. It seems me likely that the Latin "dixit ad me" was a formal equivalence rendering aiming for the very same emphasis ("dixit ad me" appears only twice throughout the Vulgata).

I know that on issues about emphasis or connotations, it is harder to get apodictic answers, and that many issues will remain open this time being. Again, I welcome any insights on the matter at hand.

[billberg23]

Yes, this needs to be a new post.  Done, with Pietersma's translation.  You can always change that.

[damaskinos]

Yes, this needs to be a new post.  Done, with Pietersma's translation.  You can always change that.

Thank you, billberg, good to know how the house works, it begins to feel like home. I will do some minor editions on the new OP for context's sake.

[damaskinos]

Hello. Just a few days ago I have noted the final remark (the last of three) in the long πρός entry in Liddell-Scott, here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pro%2Fs&la=greek#lexicon.

It says: "3. sts. (in violation of the rule given by A.D.Synt.127.8, Pron.42.5) followed by an enclit. Pron., “πρός με” S.Aj.292, Ar.Pl.1055, D.18.14 (v.l.), Men.978, Pk.77, Com.Adesp.15.25 D., 22.68 D., etc.". It is right at the bottom of the page.

Can you say whether this remark is relevant to the question, and what is the rule broken by having πρός followed by an enclitic pronoun?

Sorry to insist on a dead thread, or hopefully just a dormant one!

[billberg23]

Liddell-Scott refers to Apollonius Dyscolus' (2nd cent. CE) exhaustive work on grammar, wherein he posits a "rule" that a short preposition like pros should not be followed by a pronoun enclitic -- which seems stylistically and aesthetically reasonable.  L-S cites a number of classical exceptions to this "rule."  However, we should note that the μέ in your Septuagint text is not enclitic, but emphatic -- hence the acute accent, while πρὸς takes a grave accent.

[damaskinos]

Liddell-Scott refers to Apollonius Dyscolus' (2nd cent. CE) exhaustive work on grammar, wherein he posits a "rule" that a short preposition like pros should not be followed by a pronoun enclitic -- which seems stylistically and aesthetically reasonable.  L-S cites a number of classical exceptions to this "rule."  However, we should note that the μέ in your Septuagint text is not enclitic, but emphatic -- hence the acute accent, while πρὸς takes a grave accent.

Thanks a lot. I have to note that my digital edition of Rahlf's LXX has no stress on me, but surely I understand that written accents are a late feature in Greek and earlier Greek manuscripts had no accents at all, neither are later manuscripts homogeneous in this regard. That may explain a lot of divergences in accents one finds through several LXX Greek editions, since the putting of the stress assumes some interpretative work, though probably a basic one.

That elicits a probably very basic question: how can one tell when such a monosyllabic oblique pronoun is considered to be merely enclitic, or emphatic? (I mean, from the bare syntaxis and not from the written stress that may lack in some editions). Sorry for asking such a basic issue, but that might provide me some context as for the said pronoun - being my knowledge of Greek unequal. Of course any good link is welcome!

[billberg23]

So true.  As Pietersma says of the Psalms (NETS p. 547), "Punctuation in Rahlfs’ edition of the Greek Psalter has been treated with respect but not regarded as normative."  Swete's highly respected edition has the acute accent on μέ, as does the Perseus text.  The Masoretic text shows simply אֵלַ֥י, "to me," but who knows how the Alexandrian text put it?  We'll look forward to your decision on such matters.