Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by cwconrad »

Jason Hare wrote:[ Sorry for the slight necropost, but this thread was mentioned in a thread on CARM, and I wanted to say my peace. ;) ]
Now there's a marvelous expression, "slight necropost"! Perhaps it is possible to bury a necropost with faint peace, (pace Jason):

"Atque in perpetuum, nuntie, ave atque vale!"
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by John Brainard »

A thread resurrected from the dead. :D

καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων

What is the significance of the use of the article with the subject as well as the predicate nominative?

Is this common in Johns writings?
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Jason Hare wrote:It cannot be that ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων is the same as τὸ φῶς ἦν ἡ ζωὴ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. I don't know where this is coming from. It seems to be a mistake on the part of Robertson.

The entire phrases must be interchanged. That is [ἠ ζωὴ] ἦν [τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων] can be interchanged thus: [τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων] ἦν [ἡ ζωή].

I don't see where ἡ ζωὴ τῶν ἀνθρώπων is coming from.
[The location of the party] was [the top of the house].
is not the same as
[The top of the party] was [the location of the house].

All of the modifiers for each phrase must move with the phrase.
[The top of the house] was [the location of the party].
This latter arrangement is the converse of the original.

So also, life was the light of men is convertible to the light of men was life, not to the light was the life of men. That is a mistake, and I don't understand why it keeps getting repeated.

[ Sorry for the slight necropost, but this thread was mentioned in a thread on CARM, and I wanted to say my peace. ;) ]
Jason, it took me a while to parse out what I think is wrong with what you're saying. A controvertible proposition simply means that the subject and predicate are reversible because they precisely, in every way, are interchangeable. In this case, the qualifying genitive would remain with the new predicate and it would still mean the same thing, i.e, (in English for convenience), "the light was the life of men" would be the same as "the life was the light of men." In a nod to another post, I think this is possible here because both light and life are specified with the article -- it is a specific light and a specific life which are absolutely equated, and not equated in a generic or qualitative sense.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by John Brainard »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:It cannot be that ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων is the same as τὸ φῶς ἦν ἡ ζωὴ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. I don't know where this is coming from. It seems to be a mistake on the part of Robertson.

The entire phrases must be interchanged. That is [ἠ ζωὴ] ἦν [τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων] can be interchanged thus: [τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων] ἦν [ἡ ζωή].

I don't see where ἡ ζωὴ τῶν ἀνθρώπων is coming from.
[The location of the party] was [the top of the house].
is not the same as
[The top of the party] was [the location of the house].

All of the modifiers for each phrase must move with the phrase.
[The top of the house] was [the location of the party].
This latter arrangement is the converse of the original.

So also, life was the light of men is convertible to the light of men was life, not to the light was the life of men. That is a mistake, and I don't understand why it keeps getting repeated.

[ Sorry for the slight necropost, but this thread was mentioned in a thread on CARM, and I wanted to say my peace. ;) ]
Jason, it took me a while to parse out what I think is wrong with what you're saying. A controvertible proposition simply means that the subject and predicate are reversible because they precisely, in every way, are interchangeable. In this case, the qualifying genitive would remain with the new predicate and it would still mean the same thing, i.e, (in English for convenience), "the light was the life of men" would be the same as "the life was the light of men." In a nod to another post, I think this is possible here because both light and life are specified with the article -- it is a specific light and a specific life which are absolutely equated, and not equated in a generic or qualitative sense.
Thank you
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by Jason Hare »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:Jason, it took me a while to parse out what I think is wrong with what you're saying. A controvertible proposition simply means that the subject and predicate are reversible because they precisely, in every way, are interchangeable. In this case, the qualifying genitive would remain with the new predicate and it would still mean the same thing, i.e, (in English for convenience), "the light was the life of men" would be the same as "the life was the light of men." In a nod to another post, I think this is possible here because both light and life are specified with the article -- it is a specific light and a specific life which are absolutely equated, and not equated in a generic or qualitative sense.
This makes no sense to me at all. It's like saying that
The butcher was the savior of the town.
is the same as
The savior was the butcher of the town.
That's just ridiculous.

Yet, it is clear that The savior of the town was the butcher is the conversion of the initial statement. As long as the modifiers that are part of the noun phrase are pulled along with the head noun, it works. Otherwise, it does not.

I remember when I was in high school and took Algebra for the first time how people had difficulty understanding that in
9(x+1) = 36
you could not just subtract the x from both sides to balance it. It's about order of operations and keeping what must be together together! In this case, first divide by nine, then subtract one. And (x+1) is not the same as x. Such is the case also with "light of the world," which is not the same as "light" (generically). While, we could say that "the light of the world" is itself here identified as "life," we cannot say that "light" (generically) is identified as the light of the world - else, we might be speaking of the light of the Sun or of a candle.

The full subject (along with its modifiers) must be convertible with the full predicate nominative (along with its modifiers). Otherwise makes no sense whatsoever. I disagree with your statement that "life was the light of men" is the same as "light was the life of men." It cannot be true.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by Jason Hare »

John Brainard wrote:A thread resurrected from the dead. :D

καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων

What is the significance of the use of the article with the subject as well as the predicate nominative?

Is this common in Johns writings?
Think about these sentences:
The Greek captain [a specific one that we know and aware of] is a hero [one of a group of heroes].
The Greek captain [a specific one that we know and are aware of] is the hero of the story [a specific hero that we've got in mind].
The latter sentence is convertible (and the principle is, of course, the same in Greek) because both instances are specific. That is, we could say "The hero of the story is the Greek captain." However, we cannot say "The Greek hero is the captain of the story" or "The hero is the Greek captain of the story." While the latter might be true by happenstance, it just isn't right. The entire phrase must switch place. The entire subject ("the Greek captain") with the entire predicate nominative ("the hero of the story"). It cannot be partial, or else it is not a valid conversion.
ἡ ζωὴ (subject) ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων (predicate nominative).
Perhaps it will help to embed the genitive of the last noun phrase: τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φῶς. You must think of this as a full phrase on its own. It cannot be broken because ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ζωή is not the same as τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φῶς. It just isn't.

The fact that the messed up sentence ("light was the life of men") sounds all right in your ear is one of chance - because of the specific words involved ("light," "life" and "men"), not because the specific type of conversion is valid. It simply isn't.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by John Brainard »

Jason Hare wrote:
John Brainard wrote:A thread resurrected from the dead. :D

καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων

What is the significance of the use of the article with the subject as well as the predicate nominative?

Is this common in Johns writings?
Think about these sentences:
The Greek captain [a specific one that we know and aware of] is a hero [one of a group of heroes].
The Greek captain [a specific one that we know and are aware of] is the hero of the story [a specific hero that we've got in mind].
The latter sentence is convertible (and the principle is, of course, the same in Greek) because both instances are specific. That is, we could say "The hero of the story is the Greek captain." However, we cannot say "The Greek hero is the captain of the story" or "The hero is the Greek captain of the story." While the latter might be true by happenstance, it just isn't right. The entire phrase must switch place. The entire subject ("the Greek captain") with the entire predicate nominative ("the hero of the story"). It cannot be partial, or else it is not a valid conversion.
ἡ ζωὴ (subject) ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων (predicate nominative).
Perhaps it will help to embed the genitive of the last noun phrase: τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φῶς. You must think of this as a full phrase on its own. It cannot be broken because ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ζωή is not the same as τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φῶς. It just isn't.

The fact that the messed up sentence ("light was the life of men") sounds all right in your ear is one of chance - because of the specific words involved ("light," "life" and "men"), not because the specific type of conversion is valid. It simply isn't.

I am not sure that I follow you. The subject and the predicate nominative are in question, not the full phrase.

The Light (light) and the Life (life) are in question. Both are specific and both are understood by John to be some type of equivalent.

I know of no rule that supports what you are suggesting here but then again I am the green pea here. :oops:

John
John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Convertible Propositions

Post by John Brainard »

Does anyone here know of any good studies or books that do a good detailed job of addressing Subset and convertible propositions?

Thanks in advance

John
Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 711
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Convertible Propositions

Post by Louis L Sorenson »

Note: I have merged the above post and my reply into this thread]

Here is an old thread in the archives. http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/ ... 00643.html. This thread should stay under the current thread http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... =46&t=1345. I see no need to start a new thread.

Some may want to check out this ancient book on the Greek language. http://books.google.com/books?id=PCpMAA ... ns&f=false

A > B <> B >A
John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by John Brainard »

Thank you

John
Locked

Return to “What does this text mean?”