From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Thu Jan 08 1998 - 12:11:02 EST
On Thu, 08 Jan 1998 06:28:30 -0500 Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no>
writes:
>At 02:37 AM 1/8/98 EST, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>
>>Wouldn't you want to opt for SU and hOUTOS as being the subjects, not
>>predicate nominatives, in numbers 1 and 3 above?
>
>Er, yes. I type too fast and think too slow ;->
>
>>The other two may be good examples.
In fact, the more I think about Rom 1:16, the more I lean toward
definiteness. The interchangeableness is there. The power of God unto
salvation for all who believe is the Gospel, and vice versa. Had Paul
not added EIS SWTHRIAN PANTI PISTEUONTI, then DUNAMIS would not be
definite, inasmuch as the power of God is not restricted to the Gospel.
Of course, I am assuming an anarthrous predicate nominative will be
definite if and only if the meaning does not change when the PN and
subject are interchanged. But, I contend, this assumption is based upon
deduction (you know the argument) which many find at least questionable
in discussions of grammar.
>>
>>>In the search I did, incidentally, names or titles accounted for a
>>>large proportion of the anarthrous predicates, but perhaps I did a
>>>non-representative search.
>>
>>Yes, that's the feel I get.
>
>I wonder if that should tell us something...I don't know exactly
>what...
Well, I may have responded bleary-eyed, as well. I thought you said
anarthrous predicate nominatives, not anarthrous predicates. Then again,
I probably was thinking definite anarthrous predicate nominatives. It
must
have been the context of our recent discussion plus the late-night
affect.
I would certainly agree that many of the definite anarthrous predicate
nominatives are names or titles.
Paul Dixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:47 EDT