Determining Definiteness (in P.Noms)

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Sat Jan 03 1998 - 13:24:37 EST


Jonathan, Wes, Rolf, Carl, Dale, et al:

We started with Jonathan's citation of the Gramcord Institute's
definition of a definite noun as one that stresses identity. I like this
and would like to use it as a basis for establishing a "rule" for the
determination of definiteness in an anarthrous predicate nominative.

Before I do, however, it should be noted this definition does not say a
noun cannot have both definite and qualitative nuances. I am not
contesting what Wes and Rolf have been affirming. Furthermore, I cite
Harner's statement (borrowing from Wes), to which I have no necessary
objection:

(Harner p 87): "At a number of points in this study we have seen that
anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may be primarily
qualitative
in force yet may also have some connotation of definiteness. The
categories
of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not mutually exclusive,
and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the interpreter to
decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind."

It is the emphasis of the noun that is our concern. Now, let me present
my hypothesis for determining definiteness (by which I mean the emphasis
being definiteness) of an anarthrous predicate nominative.

Rule: an anarthrous predicate nominative will be definite if and only if
the noun can be interchanged with the subject with no change in meaning.
QEOS in Jn 1:1c, for example, would not be definite, because the meaning
changes radically when we say, "God is the Word."

The Argument:
        1. If the articular predicate nominative is interchangeable with
the subject (cf 1 Jn 3:4), and if a definite anarthrous noun is just as
definite as the articular construct, then it would seem to follow that a
definite anarthrous predicate nominative can be interchanged with the
subject with no change in meaning.
        2. This seems to follow from the definitions of definite and
predicate nominative. If a definite noun stresses identity and if a
predicate nominative equates with the subject, then we have the same.
        3. The "if" part of the rule is easily demonstrable. Where
names are found as predicate nominatives without the article, this fits
the bill (cf Jn 1:42, SU EI SIMWN).
        4. The "only if" part of the rule is not so easily demonstrable.
 I have not been able to find an example of a definite anarthrous
predicate nominative which cannot be interchanged with the subject where
the meaning changes. But, this is only an argument from silence.

I humbly submit this for your consideration and would appreciate any
feedback. Please don't hesitate to blow me out of the water. :)

Paul Dixon



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:45 EDT