Re: Gramcord notes on the article

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Thu Jan 01 1998 - 21:38:08 EST


On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 19:03:31 -0500 Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no>
writes:
>I was poking through Gramcord's online grammar notes, and found a few
>interesting tidbits. First, they actually define their terms when they
talk
>about definite, indefinite, and qualitative! Here are their definitions:
>
>Definite: stresses individual identity
>Indefinite: stresses membership in a class or group
>Qualitative: normally with abstract substantives, stresses quality,
>nature, essence.

Yes, I like these definitions. Some time ago on the list we discussed
whether nouns can be both definite and qualitative, or both qualitative
and indefinite (I believe it was on the Jn 1:1c discussion). Some were
arguing that a noun can be both. What we are really talking about is
which of the three (qualitativeness, definiteness or indefiniteness) is
being stressed by that noun. I would add to the 3rd definition above:
stresses quality rather than definiteness or indefiniteness.

>Second, they make the claim that there are no undisputed examples of an
>indefinite anarthrous pre-copulative predicate nominative construction.
>Here is the quote:
>
>Uses of the Anarthrous Pre-Copulative Predicate Nominative Construction:
>
>B1) Predicate Nominative is DEFINITE: Matt 27:42; John 1:49; Rom 1:16;
>1Cor 1:18; Heb 1:10
>
>B2) Predicate Nominative is QUALITATIVE: Normally: John 1:14; John 5:10;
>1John 4:8
>
>B3) Predicate Nominative is INDEFINITE: No undisputed examples in the NT
>
>
>Can anybody think of an example to dispute that?

Thanks for bringing this up. No, not the last question so much, to which
I have no answer, but the first one above (B1). Apparently John 1:49, 1
Cor 1:18, and Heb 1:10 are regarded by Gramcord as undisputed examples of
definite anarthrous precopulative predicate nominatives (whew!). I would
like to dispute each of these.

John 1:49 is disputed simply because the text is uncertain. It is very
significant that aleph, P66, and the majority of manuscripts have the
definite article in the text (EI hO BASILEUS).

In 1 Cor 1:18 DUNAMIS is set in contrasting parallelism to MWRIA which is
certainly qualitative. The LOGOS of the cross to those who are perishing
is foolishness, but to those who are being saved it is power, power of
God.

In Heb 1:10 we have KAI ERGA TWN CEIRWN SOU EISIN hOI OURANOI.
Is ERGA TWN CEIRWN definite? Are the heavens the complete works of God
which seems to be implication if the phrase is definite, or are the
heavens works of His hands? I think all the author is saying is that the
heavens were made by God, but I don't think he wants to communicate this
is all God made.

One of the tests for definiteness for an anarthrous predicate nominative
seems to be the convertability of the subject and predicate, such as we
find in the articular subject + copula + articular predicate nominative
construct. In other words, if the anarthrous predicate nominative is
definite, then it is being equated to the subject, as in definitions. If
we cannot reverse them, then the predicate cannot be definite.

Paul Dixon

>
>Jonathan
>___________________________________________________________________________
>
>Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com
>
>Little Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine
>Little Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons
>B-Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek/archives
>



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