p. 14: Michael Compton writes, "p. 14ff - you might add that this discussion is of the cases themselves, not as objects of prepositions (which is why I'm guessing u)po + gen as agent wasn't included in discussion of the genitive case, tho' the instrumental dative is on p. 15). If, however, your discussion is only of cases apart from prepositions, then the example of pisteu&w with various cases (p. 15) may not be the best example, as pisteu&w often takes its object after a preposition like ei)j. Perhaps a)kolouqe&w (follow) would be a better example (at this stage) of a verb which can take its object in the dative?"
My response is that, yes, I was concentrating on cases apart from prepositions, and I opted not to use a)kolouqe&w because I didn't want to introduce a contract verb at this point, and the students will be working with pisteu&w from the early chapters. I'm open to better advice, but I'm inclined to stick with what I've got here.
p, 17: Michael Compton asks, "would it be useful to point out the duplicate forms of the neuter sg n/a/v and pl n/a/v?" I say, "Sure."
He then goes on to note that I use 'Ihsou~j without translating it. I suppose I assumed that at this point, students would be ready for a little game of "Does anyone recognize that name? Sound it out...." But that may be off-target for me, so feel free to emend this.
p. 17-18: Michael Compton observes, "I believe the more reasonable explanation for the missing article is that Greek often omits the article in a prepositional pharse. Even if you keep the present explanation, perhaps *add* (with an example or two) that Greek will often omit in prep phrase when we add it in English?" Here we encounter one of the headaches of writing a grammar textbook; how many explanations do we want to give for a phenomenon, and how early? I usually tried to err on the side of honoring the ambiguity of grammatical explanation by giving more explanations than strictly necessary, but here I chose to stay with just one, partly because the examples I see in Scripture don't seem distinctly to exemplify the preposition + anarthrous noun principle (many such examples look as though the nouns are specifically definite or indefinite, so that the preposition doesn't in itself explain the article's absence). Maybe next time around I'll change this; in the meantime, teachers should feel free to call attention to the other possibility as well.
p. 19 Students won't find "apposition" in the Study Checklist; teachers should emphasize this phenomenon accordingly, since it's relatively common.
The plural of a!rtoj should be represented, of course, by "loaves." In fact, the whole gloss for a!rtoj might best be given as "loaf, bread."
The plural of artoj should be represented, of course, by "loaves." In fact, the whole gloss for artoj might best be given as "loaf, bread."
Greek-to-English Exercises
1 The Lord is leading the children to the temple.
2 The teacher does not know the word of the law.
3 We are releasing the slaves of death for the Lord.
4 Y'all see the house but y'all do not hear the people.
5 We have a law, and we know the works of the law.
6 You are receiving the bread of the slave.
7 The apostle is writing the word to the teachers.
8 The children believe the apostle.
9 I am teaching the people of God.
10 You are bringing the loaves to the house.
11 God knows the child, but the child does not know God.
12 We are not finding the house of the teacher.
13 Y'all have the bread of the temple.
14 He/she/it is teaching and writing the words.
15 The slaves are receiving the children.
16 We do not believe the lord of death.
17 The teacher is releasing the students.
18 The people are not receiving the apostle of the lord.
19 I am not speaking words of the temples, but of the law.
20 Y'all see the law; y'all also see the work of death.