EV vs EV

[Justin]

As we go through Greek, we not only begin to see the importance of prepositions but we also begin to separate out prepositional phrases as we break down sentences.

During this process, I've discovered that the neuter singular nominative of eis is en

Now in cases like John 1:3 how do we distinguish between the en here and the proposition?

Now I can already do the obvious and see that there is an accent mark (and a period in some texts) but I'm looking for a grammatical solution. Imagine we are looking at the original manuscript with no spaces, all caps and etc. How do we determine?

My inkling is the obvious vs 3 it's followed by a pronoun and a verb where the preposition in 5 is followed by an article and noun giving us an object of our preposition.

[retzev]

I dont think prepositions have gender, number or case causing eis to change into ev where did you find that? But that it is only the case of the" object "of the preposition that determines the translation of the preposition. Is your question how do we know what the object is?

[Justin]

EIS is the adjective in John 1:3, thats where I found it. It's form is EN because neuter, singular nominative.

[retzev]

Oh I see you mean ev with the rough breathing mark. I thought you were talking about the preposition ev with the dative. That's a good question how do we know the difference if the manuscript are all caps with no punctuation. My thought is that the object of the preposition is always a noun or pronoun and "yeyovev" in JOHN 1:3 is a verb maybe?

[Justin]

That was my thought also.

[retzev]

Herego, your inkling :-)

[Justin]

What I'm going for - obviously not as clearly as I thought, is what makes EN hEN (a form of hEIS) without the breathing marks and inflections? What prevents a scribe or translator from thinking there are two prepositions by mistake and the article is substantive?

[ryan]

I'm still confused. What I was trying to convey earlier is that this: "I've discovered that the neuter singular nominative of eis is en", and this: "EIS is the adjective in John 1:3, thats where I found it. It's form is EN because neuter, singular nominative" are false statements. I am assuming that by these words you meant HEN and HEIS? In your most previous post you are putting the "H" in there so at least we now know that you are referring to a different word. This is quite a confusing thread. Maybe if you just say what you are trying to say instead of "Drawing it out" as you said earlier, we will not be as confused? With your latest post I am confused by EN hEN. These two words are together in John 1:3? I didn't see that, but I will look again. If your question is simply "How can a translator tell if the word that is written down is EN or HEN / EIS or HEIS because of the lack of breathing marks in the original text" then I understand completely. However, if this IS your question then I am puzzled by all of the other things that you are bringing up in your posts.

[Justin]

They are accurate statements if you read the original post. It says imagine you are a translator and you don't have the breathing or accent marks... That shouldn't be confusing.
I posted the words without the breathing marks intentionally but you should be able to figure out what is being referenced. EN is a form of EIS if we are not looking at the accents - a translator did not have that luxury.
In that light, the original statement is in fact accurate and valid.
The fact that you said the h is helpful to see I'm refering to a differnt word is exactly what I'm talking about - WHAT IF YOU DIDNT HAVE THAT?
Looking at the text by word definitions or accents like breating marks is completley opposite of the point.
My question should be quite clear in light of my previous post.

[Justin]

For clarification, I was not going by verses and the preposition EN is in verse 2 and 4.

This is what I have been looking at and trying to see things from the original, perhaps it's a bit outside the scope of what we're doing here. Hence the confusion.

[retzev]

Man! That's much easier to read. You should have just posted that lol

[retzev]

maybe it is because of the negating particle "oude" plus context. Came into being not even one.Or that the preposition ev comes with the dative case so the relative pronoun that comes after the numerical hEV is not dative case makes the translator know that it isnt a preposition.