On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:53:51 -0600 "Steven R. Lo Vullo" writes: > > hWN TO TELOS APWLEIA > hWN hO QEOS hH KOILIA > KAI hH DOZA EN THi AISCUNHi AUTWN > > Normally the process for determining which word is the subject and > which is the predicate nominative is that the subject will be the KNOWN > entity. So, generally speaking, pronouns will take priority, then proper > names, then the articular noun. But when there are two articular nouns > and one is not a proper name, it often becomes difficult if not impossible to > distinguish the S from the PN. I think this is why Carl said either one could be the > subject in the above case. I think a couple of things about the articles in > the clause in question need to be pointed out before we attach too much > significance to them. If in a double articular construction either noun may be the subject and the other the predicate nominative, and if the meaning is the same either way, then what we have is identification or definition whereby the one is being identified with the other to the exclusion of all else. If you deny this, then what significance, if any, do you find with the double articular construction? Paul Dixon --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu