Craig

I’d like to try and clarify something please if possible.
Kristen said @252

Craig, one example that comes to mind would the case of a principal of a school explaining to a teacher how he might deal with one specific student (with an implication that any student in this specific situation would be subject to the same treatment; ie., that he is not singling this student out, but this student is the only one in this particular situation, so the action is being applied specifically to this one student).
Something like: “I do not permit a student to sell personal items to another student on school property The student should keep items she wishes to sell in her backpack and not make her transaction with the boy until they are off campus after school hours.”

Thanks very much for this Kristen. It gives me a better idea of how you see that the language could work. I think this seems very similar to an example I gave 10 days ago @163, when I said,

v11,12 sound like a general comment, but v15 indicates that Paul has a particular woman and man in mind.?
A school principal writes to a teacher, “a girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl to punch a boy. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”.
It sounds like he is stating a general principle, but his conclusion indicates that he has a particular girl and boy in mind.

After the last 10 days, with more discussion about v14b, I am happier to now give as an example
A school principal writes to a teacher, “a girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl to punch a boy. The girl has become very naughty. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”
When I used this example before, Cheryl @171 correctly pointed out that

remaining in the class is not akin to salvation being dependent on any boy who is being punched.

I am simply using this example, and I think Kristen’s example is similar, to try and better understand how the language is working here, not to understand the meaning of other things in the passage.

I am wondering whether these examples properly express what Cheryl, gengwall, and pinklight (and others who seem quite convinced of Cheryl’s 2011 view) are saying or not.

There seems to me to be a slight difference between the principal saying to the teacher
1 “Jane needs to learn quietly. I do not permit Jane to punch Tarzan. Jane has become very naughty. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately” and
2 “a girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl to punch a boy. The girl has become very naughty. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”.
In 1 The whole passage is very obviously about Jane and Tarzan. It does not sound anything like any general principle is being given.
In 2, as I stated above, “it sounds like he is stating a general principle, but as he continues, it becomes clear that he has a particular girl and boy in mind.” This girl and boy are the ones known to the principal and teacher, and are the ones who are presently involved, but the principal is writing a bit more generally at first so that the teacher is equipped to handle any similar situation that may arise. Or as Kristen put it, he is dealing “with one specific student (with an implication that any student in this specific situation would be subject to the same treatment; ie., that he is not singling this student out, but this student is the only one in this particular situation, so the action is being applied specifically to this one student).
So, is Cheryl’s view more similar to 1, or 2, above? If it is more like 1, can you think of an English equivalent, or is it difficult because English is different to Greek? If it is 2, are you OK with this example, or would you want to improve it? I hope my question makes sense. Thanks