From: Al Kidd (akidd@infoave.net)
Date: Thu Jan 08 1998 - 15:33:39 EST
Hello, Jonathan.
Well, I will reiterate one last time what I believe is and is
not going on at 1:1c.
When _convertibility_ for subject and predicate is the
semantic effect, and when the predicate is a common noun
appellative, then the predicate must be semologically definite
(through anaphora either implied or discernible from context),
and such _use_ of the definite predicate (for the semantic effect
of making the subject and predicate interchangeable) will be
signalled by its articulation. My examples showed this.
Had the common noun appellative (QEOS) in 1:1c
been definite through use as the grammatical equivalent
for the personal name of the Almighty God (such as we
see for its use in 1:1b where it is articulated), then we
would have had the semantic effect of convertibility for
subject and predicate, and there is no way that such a
predicate could have appeared anarthrously. That it
does appear anarthrously alerts us to presence of some other
semantic effect for that predicate use of QEOS. Just what that
is is still a matter of debate, too.
Thank you for your kindness in responding.
Al Kidd
*********************************
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Al,
>
> My understanding was that you had asserted that the article is necessary
> for a title. My examples were meant to demonstrate that this is not so. If
> titles can occur without the article in other contexts, why shouldn't they
> do so when used as predicates? If you assert that this is not possible,
> what is your evidence for that view? I also used the phrase CRISTOS HN hO
> LOGOS to demonstrate that a title phrase can grammatically be used as a
> non-articular predicate. I still do not think that the grammar constrains
> us to one interpretation or another of John 1:1c.
>
> I'm intentionally ignoring what "Theologians have asserted" and also what
> "some say", and even, with some difficulty, ignoring the statement that
> "Some assert that the name Jehovah is for the second person of the
> Trinity", simply because b-greek is better suited to discussing the meaning
> of the Greek text itself.
>
> One little nit:
>
> >Next is Luke 2:11. The title is without anaphora.
>
> I assume "without anaphora" means "has an article"; the phrase somehow
> reminds me of a restaurant that served "caffeinated" and "non-caffeinated"
> coffee. Here is Luke 2:11:
>
> Luke 2:11 hOTI ETECQH hUMIN SHMERON SWTHR hOS ESTIN *CRISTOS* KURIOS EN POLEI
> DAUID
>
> I don't see an article for that title.
>
> At this point, I'm not sure that we are adding new information to the
> discussion, and I don't know that we will come to agreement on this point.
> Perhaps we should agree not to go further with this unless one of us has
> new information.
>
> Jonathan
>
> jonathan@texcel.no
> Texcel Research
> http://www.texcel.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:49 EDT