From: Dale M. Wheeler (dalemw@teleport.com)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 19:10:57 EST
At 06:17 PM 12/31/97 -0500, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 01:38 PM 12/31/97 -0800, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
>
>>If you look
>>carefully at the various grammars you will find that some say that abstract
>>nouns TAKE an article and some say that abstract nouns LACK the article;
some
>>even say BOTH ??!!?? What I've discovered is that MANY of the examples
>>offered on both sides are simply invalid because of: (1) Apollonius' Canon,
>>(2) Predicate Constructions, (3) preceding Prepositions, (4) figurative
>>usage, etc., etc., etc.
>
>As I recall, Smyth and Robertson both seem to suggest that abstract nouns
>may appear with or without the article, with little difference in meaning.
>Currently, this makes sense to me...
If you actually look at the examples, eliminating those invalid ones, I
think you'll see that the preponderance are anarthrous. Eg., Eph 2:8
has frequently been listed as an example of an articular abstract noun
(XARIS), but its not; the article there is clearly deietic point back
to the previous use in vv 5, 7 (note esp., v 5), thus "this (previously
referred to) grace".
>>The list you gave for definite/indefinite suffers from these same problems:
>
>Just for the sake of clarity:
>
>1. I am not treating QEOS as an example of an abstract noun here, just
>exploring the use of QEOS without the article.
I understood that...
>2. The reason that QEOS is definite without the article may be explained in
>a given passage by Apollonius' Canon, Predicate Constructions, preceding
>Prepositions, figurative usage, etc., but only if it is possible for QEOS
>to be definite without the article. I do not see that these other
>explanations invalidate the point that QEOS does sometimes occur with
>definite meaning without the article. I do not know whether all instances
>of definite anarthrous QEOS can be adequately accounted for by these
>explanations or not.
My point was not related to QEOS per se, but to the fact that the examples
you were using to try to figure out whether QEOS was definite, indefinite,
or qualitative based on the presence/absence of the article were for the
most part invalid, ie., they told you nothing about the article, since
there were other reasons for its absence/presence which superceded its
use to show definiteness, etc. To try to figure these kinds of things out,
you *must* first eliminate invalid examples before you can come up with
some sort of guidelines. I agree that QEOS can be definite w/o the article,
in both valid and invalid places; but the only place you can *prove* it is
in valid places, not in Apollonius' Canon constructions, etc.
>>AGAPH in Gal 5:22 is *both* abstract (inherently, which means that it refers
>>to an abstraction, not a concrete act, and is thus a quality) and
qualitative
>>(but NOT because its anarthrous, which is caused by the predicate cstr, but
>>because its inherently qualitative). The verse is not referring to specific
>>acts of love, joy, peace (which would be definite) but character qualities.
>>Its not necessary to add the "-ness" ending for something to be abstract and
>>qualitative.
>
>Can the same be said of the construction "the Word was God", which doesn't
>mean "the Word was the God" or "the Word was a God"?
No, because we are not starting from the same frame of reference, ie., QEOS
is a concrete (perhaps, count) noun, not an abstract noun. For Greek to be
able to turn a concrete into a qualitative, my sense is that it would have
to be anarthrous, viz., hO ANQRWPOS could not mean "mankind" (unless it was
in an Apollonius' Canon construction, etc.). My personal view on John 1:1c
is that QEOS is anathrous because its a predicate, non-convertible
proposition; its qualitative (or definite...but I don't think here) because
its precopulative (I'm not attempting to turn Colwell around here, ie.,
QEOS is put before the verb because John intends it to be understood a
certain way).
One other thing that may (??!!??) help is to remember that traditionally
(and I don't think this covers everything), when grammars have referred
to an anarthrous noun as *indefinite*, they don't mean that we don't know
who is being referred to, but rather we are referring to a (normally
singular) representative of a class. "I see a man (BLEPW ANQRWPON)."
doesn't mean that I'm unsure what I'm BLEPWing, but rather I'm seeing
a representative of the class "man". I'm not sure what representative
(=a definite/specific man) I'm seeing, and I can't tell you in what
ways he may or may not be a good representative (=qualitative), but
I recognize enough to know that he is "a man". As I said, I don't
think this covers all the nuances, but its a good place to start. This
is why "indefinite", a god, doesn't work for John 1:1c, since Jesus/the
Word would have to represent a class; but there is no class to represent
in Judeo-Christian theology, since there is only 1 member. In this
sense, the Christian use of QEOS to refer to their God is monadic; it
is my observation that when other factors are not involved (eg., Apollonius'
Canon, etc.) there is a propensity to use the article with QEOS to make
it clear within a polytheist cultural world-view that they were referring
to the singular true God (if I go any further, this will become
theology... ;-)
>My dictionary lists this as one of the definitions of "definite": "Clearly
>defined; precise and explicit". In this sense, I'm not at all convinced
>that the Greek article is definite...
Again, it has been traditional in grammars to explain the term "definite"
as being deitic, in the sense that the article points out/to a specific
instance, thing, person, etc. The reasons for the specificity can be
legion and are in general contextual. Again, however, I don't think that
this covers the whole area, but its a good place to start.
XAIREIN...
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:44 EDT