From: Wes Williams (WesWilliams@usa.net)
Date: Fri Jan 02 1998 - 19:56:57 EST
Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 20:41:07 -0700 Wes Williams <WesWilliams@usa.net>
> writes:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >When someone suggests that a count noun with some qualitative emphasis
> >is neither definite nor indefinite any longer, should we not properly
> >question them to show an undisputed example rather than unquestioningly
> >accepting a new proposal as a new "rule"? I know you well enough to
> know >that you already abide by that principle, but it nevertheless needs
> to be >underscored due to the propensity to accept new "rules" without
> questioning >the evidence.
>
> Do you deny that nouns stress either
> definiteness, indefiniteness or qualitativeness, but not two or more
> equally? That is the issue, I believe.
>
Paul,
I agree with you that this is the issue and I await further evidence in this
area. You appropriately deserve a degree of credit for surfacing research
associated with qualitative nouns. Based on the research from Arthur Slatten
(1918) and Harner (1973) with respect to qualitative nouns, I see the
assertions of single nuancing as modern.
What do you think of Harner and Slatten's statements below? Does convincing
evidence exist to warrant a departure from their research? Personally, I am
not dogmatic about this one way or the other. However, after having read
their research a number of times, I fail to see the substance in the argument
for single nuancing.
Phillip B. Harner wrote in "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark
15:39
and John 1:1, JBL, 1973"
(Harner p 87): "At a number of points in this study we have seen that
anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may be primarily qualitative
in force yet may also have some connotation of definiteness. The categories
of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not mutually exclusive,
and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the interpreter to
decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind."
(Harner p 78):
"The third example occurs in the account of Jesus' walking on the water (Mark
6:45-52). When the disciples see Jesus, they think hOTI FANTASMA ESTIN
(6:49).
Mark's meaning here probably is that they think Jesus is "a ghost" or an
apparition of some kind. There is no basis in the context, at any rate, for
regarding the noun as definite. The qualitative significance appears to be
secondary in this clause, since it is concerned with the identification of a
figure who is dimly perceived by the disciples rather than some attribute or
quality of Jesus himself."
"Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the
Revised Version" by Arthur W. Slatten, 1918
(Slatten p. 7) [asterisks mine]:
"At the same time it is to be noted that the literal sense may obtain
alongside the qualitative. Frederick may, for example, in fact be a
prince and to him may be attributed the virtues that are regarded as
proper to his station. *In most instances this is precisely the design
of the qualitative usage,* viz., to direct the attention of a hearer or
reader to the qualities or characteristics that properly belong to that
which the noun designates. "
Sincerely,
Wes Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:43 EDT