From: Steve Lovullo (SLovullo@etcconnect.com)
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 13:15:11 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dixonps@juno.com [mailto:dixonps@juno.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 1:39 PM
> To: Biblical Greek
> Cc: b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Subject: [b-greek] Re: hO QEOS in Phil. 3:19
> It seems to beg the question to say the articles are used to signify
> possession. If so, then the question still remains: why does he use the
> articles to signify possession? In other words, what would be the
> significance if he had used AUTWN ... AUTWN?
They articles signify specific entities possessed by the people in question.
That is why the article is typically used with nouns modified by genitive
pronouns.
> The argument still carries: their god is their belly, being identical
> to, their belly is their god. Its the same as saying, all A
> is B, and all B is A. The exclusion would be all non-A is non-B and vice
> versa. That is all I am saying, not denying that their stomach also
> processes food.
I'm afraid the argument doesn't carry. Lets try another example somewhat
similar to my English example "my computer is my friend." We'll suppose that
we are talking about Peter and Andrew, and we will use the same construction
as that in question:
hWN TO PLOION hO FILOS ("whose boat is their friend")
If we follow your reasoning, their boat is their friend to the exclusion of
all other friends. This simply doesn't follow. It is the idea "to the
exclusion of all others" to which I take exception.
Steve Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:46 EDT