Diminutives and the Nelly Effect

Most people who speak English know that Bobby, Billy, Betsy, and Benjy are all short for something else. Your little Suzy will likely one day outgrow her nickname and revert to the more adult “Susanna.”

But nicknames sometimes go through a reverse process, taking on a life of their own disconnected from their progenitors. Everybody who spoke English in years past used to know that “Nelly” was short for “Helen,” but the connection between the two has weakened: the most prominent “Nelly” today (Google says) has “Nelly” on her birth certificate, not “Helen” (interestingly, she got the name from a Soviet gymnast named Нелли whose parents were very unlikely to know Nelly’s English derivation). The diminutive form “Nelly” has established its own independent existence.

A diminutive is a word or affix that indicates small size or, often, the quality of lovableness or familiarity. “Nelly” and “Suzy” are names you give to a lovable little girl in your family. You don’t call a grown Susanna “Suzy” unless you have established a certain amount of that familiarity.* The diminutive is a term of endearment.

Unless it isn’t. Like with “Nelly.”

So how do you know whether a diminutive in English—or in the Greek New Testament—is a Suzy or a Nelly, a term of endearment or a form that has established its own existence and shed its associations with lovability?

Usage. As in all language, usage determines meaning. If, broadly speaking, “Nelly” is no longer used to express endearment or small size, then it’s no longer a diminutive.

Little Greek Dogs

Finally to the Greek: κύων is Koine for “dog.” It occurs just five times in the New Testament, because (surprise) the New Testament doesn’t talk about dogs very much. But there’s another Greek word for “dog” that appears four times, and it’s a diminutive: κυνάριον.

The -αριον affix is what makes the word a diminutive, just like “-sie” in English turns toe into tootsie, Beth into Betsy. In Greek, an ὄνος is a donkey; an ὀνάριον is a little donkey. A παῖς is a child; a παιδάριον is a little child.

But the Nelly effect is visible in Greek diminutives in the NT: when Peter draws a sword and strikes the high priest’s servant, he cuts off his ὠτάριον. Presumably, grown men in arrest parties in NT times didn’t have cute little ears.

Likewise with κυνάριον: it appears in basically one NT pericope, the conversation Jesus has with the Syrophoenician woman. He says it’s not right to throw the children’s bread to the κυνάριον, and she deftly replies (I’ve always loved this passage) that even the κυνάρια get to eat the scraps that fall off their master’s table (Matt 15:26–27; Mark 7:27–28).

Did Jesus really mean to specify that you don’t throw the kids’ food to little dogs? Maybe. Some interpreters have thought so over the years, and Jesus is surely capable of that kind of subtlety. Maybe he chose that word because littler dogs are likely to be inside homes, not big dogs. But most students of NT Greek today see the Nelly effect here: Jesus is just using an alternate form for “dogs,” with no comment on their size or lovability.

In a helpful and rigorous article in the journal Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics, Jonathan Watt lists a few other “faded” or “bleached” diminutives:

ὀνάριον (“donkey-DIM”), παιδίον/παιδάριον (“child-DIM”), κοράσιον (“girl-DIM”), νεανίσκος (“boy-DIM,” Matt 19:20, 22…), and θυγάτριον (“daughter-DIM”).**

And this is important to more than just Jesus’ conversation about dogs and scraps; it makes a difference—doesn’t it?—if John addresses “my children,” or “my little children” eleven times in his first epistle. People who study Greek do so because they want a greater level of insight into the text of Scripture, or they want to be able to say “Thus saith the Lord” in the pulpit with a greater degree of confidence.

Certain features of a given language wear away over time, like St. Peter’s toe at the Vatican. And some features grow in complexity. Greek is no exception. Watch for the Nelly effect.

*Even the professionals who go by the diminutive forms of their names—such as “Suze” Orman—do so in part (I judge) because they want to establish a girl-next-door familiarity and trust.

**Here’s a direct link if you have BAGL. The “Semantics and Pragmatics of Diminutives” chart in that article is worth the price of the journals. Very interesting.


For those interested in Greek linguistics, senior editor of BAGL Stanley Porter has recently written a collection of essays, Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice. He includes a number of fascinating topics, and ends with exegetical praxis.

Share
Written by
Mark Ward

Christian, husband, father, writer, ultimate frisbee player when possible.

View all articles
15 comments
  • Of course, the mere fact that there were dogs or puppies under the table indicates again that it’s a Gentile family, as Jews would not have unclean creatures like dogs in their house. Unless of course small boys snuck them in against the will of the parents. Unheard of!

  • Of course, the diminutive does not have to mean “little dog” as if comparing a chihuahua to a mastiff. It might mean “puppy.” This puts a twinkle in Jesus’s eye and reduces the absolutely crushing nature of his famous reply. The woman’s answer is great, but I would have run away in tears if I had thought Jesus was really calling me a dog, tout court.

    • I was technically non-committal in the post as to whether κυνάριον was bleached or not, and this is a very good reason to think it wasn’t, or not very much.

  • I realize that the Greek words are what is inspired, but I wonder what Jesus said in Aramaic–is there a similar diminutive for dog in that language, or did Mark (or Matthew–whoever wrote first) add that nuance (under divine influence)?

    • That Hurtado post was one I missed. Excellent. I did omit checking TLG for this post, I confess! I see no reason to disagree, but I guess I’d point out that the contextual factors outweigh the lexical in general—and they are determinative here: of course they’re not street dogs, even if Jesus had used the word κύων, because they’re eating crumbs that fall from the table. And they’re not, apparently, under the table, because people in that culture typically reclined on the floor while eating. So these dogs are pets. The upshot of what Hurtado says is that Jesus wasn’t as insulting and provocative as he could have been. He was being as gentle as possible in his “insult,” knowing full well (from the glint in the woman’s own eye?) that his intended message would be received. Like I said, I love this passage!

  • Martin Luther mentions this exchange (oddly in his Galatians commentary) to show that behind all God’s ‘No’s there is always a ‘Yes’ (of the gospel). The passage shows the woman’s faith as does the woman badgering at night for a loaf of bread

    The woman’s reply to Jesus suggests that, even if the truths about, and special relationship with, God had been given to the Jews, these truths would be of benefit to the Gentiles. Rahab realised this. This also picks up the OT commandment about leaving the grain at the side of the field for the poor (although not specifically Gentile poor)

    Interestingly, in Matthew, the passage falls between two other passages relating to eating 15 v2 and v32

    And the potential nuance of the diminutive, bleached or otherwise, is fascinating. Thank you

  • Many thanks, Mark. These pieces that you send promise to be really helpful, together with the links you provide. I’ve read the Jonathan Watt article and found it of enormous help and interest. This is an article I was unaware of so, together with your own knowledge, this Logos Greek is going to be a real benefit for anyone trying to get to grips with the beauty and subtlety of NT Greek.

  • Was the historical Jesus really speaking Greek with the woman? If not, then many things change about your study and conclusions.

    • The Aramaic question is totally fair, but it’s one I find never has any firm answer and never gets me anywhere exegetically. When it does get me somewhere (as with some interpretations of “Thou art Peter and upon this rock…”), I tend to think of it as cheating, special pleading. I agree with Dan Olinger that the final form of the (Greek) text is what I have to deal with.

  • Actually, wouldn’t they have been small dogs because their tables were down low? It was more common to sit on the floor at tables than in chairs.

  • […] I was somewhat surprised, after I posted about Jesus’ use of the diminutive κυνάριον in his delightful conversation with the Syrophoenician woman (Matt 15:26–27), to have several people make comments like this one: […]

Written by Mark Ward
theLAB