Spending a Year Living Like Jesus

Mark Mandel thnidu at GMAIL.COM
Thu Jan 8 18:49:04 UTC 2009

As I seem to recall, the KJV's "which PROPER-NOUN" construction is used
(only?) with the same PROPER-NOUN as antecedent, and I've always construed
it as = "who", or "and this person named PROPER-NOUN..." That interpretation
doesn't work here, unless you take the antecedent as "God", which is
theologically possible but seems unlikely here.

I see the most reasonable interpretation, which I think has already been
suggested, as an unintentional omission: "[for [doing]] which" or "which
Jesus ... drunkard [for doing]".

Mark Mandel

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:57 AM, David Bowie <db.list at pmpkn.net> wrote:

> From:    Victor <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> > I am having a hard time parsing the quote:
> > http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/story?id=6573818
> > [Ed Dobson] even had a couple of beers along the way. "I would often go
> > down to the bar, sit up at the counter, drink a beer and talk about God,
> > which Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard," he said.
> This construction is all over the King James Version of the Bible. Seems
> reasonable that a Xian minister might have internalized it, even if it's
> not part of Dobson's native variety.
> (BTW--at least as i parse it when it's in the KJV, the "which" in the
> above is not equivalent to "for which".)
> --
> David Bowie                               University of Central Florida
>     Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
>     house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
>     chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

More information about the Ads-l mailing list