>This I did and found the following: the anarthrous predicate nominative in
>John is qualitative in 65 of 74 occurrences, or 88% probability. When the
>anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb it is qualitative in 50
>of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability. When it follows the verb the
>anarthrous predicate nominative is qualitative 13 of 19 occurrences, or
>68%. In his grammar Wallace agrees with my conclusions, though he thinks
>the probabilities may not be as high.
I appreciate very much what you did. I've read both Harner and Colwell and
Harner's arguments are persuasive for qualitativeness but I have not seen it
applied much in Grammars. I see that Wallace agrees with you as a generality
but still goes with one or more of his own applications. I have a procedural
question regarding your categorization of Definite/ Indefinite/ Qualitativeness.
It seems that studies of this type state that the pre-copulative anarthrous PN
must be Definite OR Qualitative OR Indefinite. The way I see it, and perhaps
closer to real life (IMO), a PN can cross the bounds of two categories. For
example, in the English sentence "Charles is a prince," I can mean several
possibilities, two of which combine categories....
1) Charles is the son of a monarch (indefinite)
2) Charles is the son of a monarch and is also of princely character but I am
emphasizing the group (indefinite and qualitative with indefinite emphasis)
3) Charles is of princely character and also happens to be a son of a monarch
(qualitative and indefinite with qualitative emphasis)
4) Charles is a prince of a man and is not the son of a monarch (qualitative)
In John's 74 instances, there seems to be ever so many instances where a
predicate nom. crosses category bounds (e.g. John 9:24 "This man is a sinner.")
In your case, this added feature would likely not affect your conclusion but it
would affect the statistics.
What are your thoughts on gathering statistics for PN's that have application in