Re: genitives

Randy Leedy (
Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:09:06 -0500

Micheal Palmer wrote:

>>>My question was meant to ask WHY we should see it as "all the more
convincing" to view the relationships in this way. Why should the
first genitive being anarthrous lead us to construe it in the way you

Sorry; apparently I misunderstood the question. I take the anarthrous
state of the first genitive as reinforcing its use as an abstract
modifer, emphasizing a quality. Though anarthrous nouns don't ALWAYS
emphasize a quality, the absence of the article in a construction
like the one under consideration does seem to me to carry some
significance. Others will probably disagree.

>>>Again, I am NOT saying that your reading seems wrong to me. In
fact, it seems quite natural. Still, taking DOXHIS as a modifier of
EPAINON also seems like a natural reading to me. What factors can we
infer from usage elsewhere which would argue in favor of one reading
over the other, or is this simply a matter which must be resolved on
the basis of the available context?

Taking DOXHS as a modifier of EPAINON is exactly what I was arguing
for (unless you mean as objective genitive of EPAINON). I think maybe
you meant "as a modifier of THS CARITOS." I can't provide objectively
based argumentation on this point. It just doesn't "feel right" to me
to take one of a string of genitives as modifying the following word
rather than the preceding one. (I think the fact that DOXHS is
anarthrous is part of the reason I want to construe it with the
previous genitive; it seems very odd to me that an anarthrous
pregenitive would be the abstraction attributed to a following
genitive. I find myself wishing for a chalkboard here; I hope I'm
being clear enough.) But perhaps there are unambiguous examples that
would justify doing so. This discussion interests me more and more as
it develops, but I'm afraid I won't be able to take the time to
really dig into it as I'd like. We'll see.

Randy Leedy