Re: Gramcord notes on the article

From: Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Date: Mon Jan 05 1998 - 21:00:56 EST


At 07:47 PM 1/5/98 EST, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 14:11:59 -0500 Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>At 01:48 PM 1/2/98 EST, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
 
>>>Let me try to state the rule (call it Dixon's rule, if you like and for
>>>simplicity): a predicate nominative will be definite if and only if it
>>>can be interchanged with the subject without losing any meaning. Boy,
>>>am I going out on a limb on this one, or what? Saw away.
>>
>>I'm not ready to saw yet, since the burden of proof rests on the
>>affirmative. Give me some proof, then we'll start sawing ;->
>
>Well, there are plenty of examples affirming it. I could go through the
>Gospel of John and demonstrate it, I believe. Take 1:1c and 1:14 for
>starters. Or, take one of the examples given by the Gramcord Institute
>I challenged, Heb 1:10, ERGA TWN CEIRWN SOU EISIN hOI OURANOI.
>The Institute notes argue for definiteness. If we turn it around, does
>it work? "The works of your hands are the heavens"? I don't think so, not
>unless we want to conclude that the heavens are the complete works of
>God's hands. What about the earth? It seems to be the anarthrous
>construction is important here and that it probably indicates
>qualitativeness, even though we might still translate it with a "the."

This is circular reasoning - you are using the test you propose to evaluate
whether this example invalidates the test you propose. In the linguistics
literature I've read recently, linguistic tests are usually defined in the
domain of the language that is being studied, not in terms of the truth
value of transformations of logical propositions which are stated in the
language. I'm fairly convinced by Paul Grice's arguments that that natural
language logic and formal language logic can be quite different, and I also
suspect that the manner in which they differ may vary somewhat from
language to language.

Incidentally, if you assume, with Robertson, that the absence of the
article has no fixed meaning, then an indefinite reading seems to make
sense here:

"The heavens are works of your hands"

Since you argue for the qualitative interpretation, and Dale for the
definite, I thought I'd fill in the third possibility ;->

Jonathan

 
jonathan@texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:46 EDT