> Let us then use an imagined example with a worshipper of the moon who would
> say:
>
> EN ARCH HN hH SELHNH, KAI hH SELHNH PROS TON hHLION, KAI hHLIOS HN hH SELHNH.
>
> We know that the moon and the sun are specific in a semantic sense, thus
> being uncalcelable. Suppose now that we read this text, and we know that
> the author agrees that hHLIOS is specific, but we don`t know whether he
> equates hH SELHNH with hO hHLIOS, thus making it specific, or how he views
> his moon god. Assuming his meaning is that there is only one specific sun,
> the proposition PROS should preclude any equation between the moon and the
> sun, and in the light of this, the lack of article before hHLIOS in 1c,
> most probably would give it a generic sense "and the moon was a sun". The
> example is interesting because like QEOS also hHLIOS can have a specific
> and a generic sense, and when the specific one is impossible the other
> alternative is mandatory.
>
> Further may the relation between what is generic (in this case also
> indefinite) and what is qualitativ be illuminated. We cannot treat hHLIOS
> as a bare adjective and translate 1c as "and the moon was shining" or
> similar. It is possible that our moon worshipper would stress the
> qualitativness of hH SELHNH, viewing it as almost as glorious as hO hHLIOS,
> but this cannot stand alone but must be anchored in the fact that the moon
> is one of class "suns".
Can't hH SELHNH (HN) PROS TON hHLION mean:
The Moon was by the light of the Sun
(The Moon shone by the light of the Sun)
0r, astrologically;
The Moon was in aspect to the Sun
Thus, "And, the Moon was a sun."
Regards,
Will Wagers taxis@gte.net "Reality is the best metaphor."