From: George Athas (gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au)
Date: Mon Mar 16 1998 - 20:25:55 EST
Hi Carl!
> At 4:52 PM -0600 3/16/98, George Athas wrote:
> >Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> >
> >> But how can it be predicative when there's an article in front of it? I
> >> think one might well argue that it really is attributive without an
> >> article, in which case one could make out a case for its being EITHER
> >> attributive OR predicative, but I don't see how it can be predicative with
> >> the article there.
> >
> >In the same way that H KAINH DIAQHKH is predicative earlier in the verse - it
> > has an article there, too.
>
> This is not comparable. hH KAINH DIAQHKH is in fact the predicate to TOUTO
> TO POTHRION, linked to it by ESTIN, while TO hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON is
> linked directly to TOUTO TO POTHRION by article and by participle in
> agreement with POTHRION.
>
> At least, that's the way I've understood and taught the distinction between
> predicative and attributive adjectives/participles.
Carl, where is the word ESTIN in this verse? It is nowhere to be seen in the texts
I have. The predicate relationship between TO POTHRION and hH KAINH DIAQHKH is
implied, not stated. This, I believe, is the same as what is happening with TW
hAIMATI MOU and TO hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON. Yes, I can see how TO hUPER hUMWN
EKCUNNOMENON may modify the TO POTHRION, but it can also be the implied predicate
of TW hAIMATI MOU.
Best regards!
George Athas
PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney
Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological College
Phone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591
Email: gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au
(Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at)
(http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:11 EDT