On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:37:14 -0600 Steve Lovullo writes: > > As I pointed out in my first post, the articles seem to be what > would > customarily be used to signify possession. I fail to see how this > necessarily identifies one with the other "to the exclusion of all > else." If > I say "my computer is my friend," this in no way suggests that my > computer > is my only friend to the exclusion of all other friends, or that my > computer > is ONLY my friend and nothing else. Would we say that because their > belly is > their God it therefore is NOT also their means of processing food? > It seems > that any number of things could be predicated about their belly. How > would > this constitute their belly as being ONLY their God "to the > exclusion of all > else?" It seems to beg the question to say the articles are used to signify possession. If so, then the question still remains: why does he use the articles to signify possession? In other words, what would be the significance if he had used AUTWN ... AUTWN? The argument still carries: their god is their belly, being identical to, their belly is their god. Its the same as saying, all A is B, and all B is A. The exclusion would be all non-A is non-B and vice versa. That is all I am saying, not denying that their stomach also processes food. 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