Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
It is possible that a “time fly” is a kind of fly like a fruit fly, and therefore the sentence “time flies like an arrow” is making the surprising assertion that this species of fly happens to like arrows. But just because that reading is conceivable doesn’t mean it’s reasonable.
I am definitely beginning to enjoy this!
Since I have no practical experience of a “time fly” – I would not see why it is
unreasonable to think such a creature likes an arrow – I have noticed certain house flies which land on the arrow of a clock. But I do get your pointer other than that.
su tis ei means “who are you?”.
Fair enough, although my eccentric “why! something are you?” ends up raising the same question.
eipen de autois o Iesous means “And Jesus said to them.” To bend these phrases to other meanings would require you to entertain the same meanings in all the other occurrences in the Bible (and the latter construction is VERY common).
Yes, and since I have been examining the Greek by example – it is very difficult to separate out the issue at my stage of the game.
I didn’t check for the commonness of the latter construction when I made my hyper-hyper literal translation. I examined the possibilities according to what I have verified so far – and took a stab at it.
That is not how Iesous declines.
Ok, I won’t argue this point – I will just note that it is a coincidence that it ends in ους (Which hapens to be a Greek accusative ending.) Although, God saves (plural) doesn’t seem to be totally unreasonable … just unlikely
In answer to the question su tis ei you would expect an answer in the nominative case: he arxe [eimi].
`η αρχε ειμι] // the ‘I am’ being implied otherwise, yes…
However, in modern English you would use the accusative case: in answer to the question “Who did this?” you would say “Me” – you can only answer “I!” if you’re wearing a cape – and it’s imaginable that something like this happened in Greek. I think I read that this did happen in later Latin.
“I” is an English subject (nominative) and “me” being the predicate (accusative) case. Yes, I see, … and not only that but some people are overly paranoid in English and say things like: “Who are coming except John and I?” rather than “John and me”.
Ok, I follow that reasoning – this I did not know, and will have to check into more.
Thank you for pointing that out, as an English bias does appear to have tripped me up here.
As a side note, when I first learned electronics, my teacher told me it all runs on smoke. If you let the smoke out – it no longer works. So, I am not quick to discount other possible meaning of sentences – because the equivocal statement is sometimes used on purpose – one never knows for certain when Jesus might be pulling a teaching moment joke on his adversaries.
If St. Cyril read ten arxen as the answer to su tis ei, that would be evidence that something like this did happen, but I would still wonder whether it happened before or after St. John wrote.
Ummm,
ten archen = τ-εν αρχ-εν ?
I think you mean: τ-ην αρχ-εν? or t-ην αρχ-ην?
I’ll figure it out in a bit.
Still, if the Greek is to be understood as “The Beginning, who is also speaking to you,” why would ho ti be neuter? he arxe is feminine and Jesus is masculine.
Yes, exactly – it is odd as far as I can tell.
Although, isn’t `ο (ho) masculine?
So, an “adverbial accusative” still seems like the most viable contender: compare perhaps Phil 3.1: to loipon doesn’t mean “the rest” here, but “finally.”
hmmm … Ok, I’ll look – and get back to you after thinking about it.
