Re: The article for abstract nouns

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 03:41:24 EST


On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:35:25 -0500 Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no>
writes:
>Several grammars make the point that Greek often, but not necessarily,
>omits the article for abstract nouns, e.g.

I'm not sure we should interpret "omits the article" by such grammars as
saying that the nouns are definite though anarthrous. It could be they
are simply saying that abstract nouns, especially in predicate
constructions such as cited by you below, are often anarthrous. This, of
course, says nothing about whether they are definite, indefinite, or
qualitative.

Be careful. This was the error of Colwell who affirmed that definite
predicate nouns tend to be anarthrous (which may or may not be correct),
but then erroneously concluded, along with many others subsequently, that
anarthrous predicate nouns tend to be definite (recall that subsequent
scholars used his rule to argue that QEOS in Jn 1:1c was definite).

>Gal 5:22 hO DE KARPOS TOU PNEUMATOS ESTIN AGAPH XARA EIRHNH...
>
>It seems to me that English does the same thing here, translating "love,
>joy, peace...", and not "a love, a joy, a peace...". Is it accurate to
say
>that *both* English and Greek often omit the definite article for
abstract
>nouns, even though a definite meaning is intended?

>I assume that the qualitative interpretation of this would be
"lovingness,
>joyfulness, peacefulness", and is not really an accurate translation.
>
>Am I anywhere close?
>
No, remember, the rule is that the subject is usually given away by the
articular construction and the predicate by the anarthrous construction.
If both the subject and predicate were articular, then we would have
equivalency, and each could be exchanged for the other. This is the
essence of biconditionality, the essence of definitions. The only place
I know of where an articular subject and articular predicate, joined by a
copula, is found in scripture is in 1 Jn 3:4, hH hAMAPTIA ESTIN hH
ANOMIA. Carl, as I recall, cited one extra-biblical example of an
anarthrous subject + copula + anarthrous predicate.

The rule seems to hold well, however, that an articular subject + copula
yields an anarthrous predicate, such as in Gal 5:22 (or Jn 1:1c). Now,
are these abstract nouns definite? If so, then there would still be the
problem of equivalency. If AGAPH in Gal 5:22 is definite, then so
probably is AGAPH in 1 Jn 4:8, hO QEOS AGAPH ESTIN. While we may not
have trouble with saying love, patience, longsuffering , etc are the
fruit of the Spirit, we would probably have a lot of problems
interchanging the terms in 1 Jn 4:8, and Jn 1:1c respectively.

To say "A is B" does not imply A=B. It seems merely to affirm that A is
included in the class of B. Nothing more.

Paul Dixon



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:44 EDT