Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT

MAubrey
Posts: 1028
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT

Post by MAubrey » August 4th, 2011, 10:03 pm

David Lim wrote:Sorry I meant "syntactical rule" when I said "grammatical rule". Since you agree that "father" and "son" are typically mutually exclusive and therefore form an exception, then that was all I was trying to establish, which means that it is not syntactical constructions (article + singular personal noun + και + singular personal noun) that determine the meaning but rather both syntactic and semantic considerations. :)
Wait what? No. It is semantic, yes, but if you don't have the article + singular personal (non-proper) noun + και + singular personal (non-proper) noun, there's nothing left for semantics to apply. It's a pairing of form and meaning = construction and thus also syntactic. The only reason I hadn't said that previously was because I thought it was clear.
David Lim wrote:Furthermore, it is not true that the semantic principle I mentioned only applies in Greek. It also occurs in English in my opinion.
You're going to have to explain why you think this. I don't see that at all.
0 x


Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT

Post by David Lim » August 5th, 2011, 11:07 am

MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:Furthermore, it is not true that the semantic principle I mentioned only applies in Greek. It also occurs in English in my opinion.
You're going to have to explain why you think this. I don't see that at all.
The article "the" also functions as a weak demonstrative determiner, usually referring to a specific instance of a noun that is in the current scope of context or immediately described by an adjectival clause. We can say "the fast and simple solution" but not "the fast and the simple solution", because a second "the" would cause "the simple solution" to point out of that clause and "the fast" would be left incomplete, whereas an anarthous "simple" would naturally be grouped with "fast" in "the (fast and simple) solution". Also, we can say "the complicated solution and the simple solution" but not "the complicated and simple solution" for the same reason, because both articles are needed to point out of that clause. However English is more flexible in today's usage and it is sometimes alright to omit the article in certain constructions, especially those with substantive adjectives, like "the good and evil", or when considered as one group, like "the table and chair". This is because the semantic considerations function to exclude the unlikely possibilities of "the ones who are both good and evil" and "the object which is both a table and a chair", just as we agree that semantic and not just syntactic considerations function in Greek to eliminate unlikely or unintended possibilities. This is what I was referring to when I said "the semantic principle also occurs in English".
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

MAubrey
Posts: 1028
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT

Post by MAubrey » August 5th, 2011, 12:43 pm

David Lim wrote:
MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:Furthermore, it is not true that the semantic principle I mentioned only applies in Greek. It also occurs in English in my opinion.
You're going to have to explain why you think this. I don't see that at all.
The article "the" also functions as a weak demonstrative determiner, usually referring to a specific instance of a noun that is in the current scope of context or immediately described by an adjectival clause. We can say "the fast and simple solution" but not "the fast and the simple solution", because a second "the" would cause "the simple solution" to point out of that clause and "the fast" would be left incomplete, whereas an anarthous "simple" would naturally be grouped with "fast" in "the (fast and simple) solution". Also, we can say "the complicated solution and the simple solution" but not "the complicated and simple solution" for the same reason, because both articles are needed to point out of that clause. However English is more flexible in today's usage and it is sometimes alright to omit the article in certain constructions, especially those with substantive adjectives, like "the good and evil", or when considered as one group, like "the table and chair". This is because the semantic considerations function to exclude the unlikely possibilities of "the ones who are both good and evil" and "the object which is both a table and a chair", just as we agree that semantic and not just syntactic considerations function in Greek to eliminate unlikely or unintended possibilities. This is what I was referring to when I said "the semantic principle also occurs in English".
They're parallel, but I'm not sure they're the same. English has a semantic constraint on this that says that coordinated nouns must not be personal, whereas Hellenistic Greek has a semantic constraint that says the coordinated nouns must be personal.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3020
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT

Post by Stephen Carlson » August 5th, 2011, 2:44 pm

MAubrey wrote:In grammar and semantics, linguists talk about "prototype theory." Your "exceptions" are a great example of non-prototypicality. Sharps rule describes two coordinated singular, common, nouns sharing an article. That's the basic morpho-syntactic conception. When you add semantics to it, things change. The prototypical instance of the rule is always going to involve two common nouns with no inherent relationship to each other.
Prototype theory sounds like an excellent way to go about understanding the Granville-Sharp construction--I'm with you there--but that's not the approach Wallace used. Rather, his approach was a lot more categorical, trying to determine the exact, necessary and sufficient conditions in which the rule held.

I must admit that I found such a categorical approach quite frustrating. Many of the qualifications and exceptions seem poorly motivated except to fit a fairly small corpus. Frankly, that proposed Trinitarian exception was the last straw for me on his categorical approach, especially since he seemed very keen on applying a suitably refined Granville-Sharp rule to Tit 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 in order to affirm a major element of Trinitarian theology.

There's got to be a better way for conceptualizing this construction, and perhaps prototype theory is the way to go. I note that the Classical Greek grammars don't seem to recognize the specific construction. Rather, they seem content to address a more general contraction with a conjunction of two or more nouns governed by a single article, without the specific qualifications and exceptions that Wallace identifies.

For example, Stéphanie Bakker, The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek (ASCP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 177 states:
In a (very small) number of cases of coordinations of identifiable entities, however, one article serves to express the identifiability of all the entities. The effect of the omission of the article with the second, third, etc. noun in the coordination is that the different entities are depicted as one whole.
Her footnote (omitted above) cites Smyth § 1143 who states:
1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion: οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί the generals and captains (the commanding officers) X. A. 2. 2. 8, τὰς μεγίστᾱς καὶ ἐλαχίστᾱς ναῦς the largest and the smallest ships (the whole fleet) T. 1. 10, ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος the calumniations and envy of the multitude P. A. 28 a. Rarely when the substantives are of different genders: περὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψῡχὰς καὶ σώματα concerning their own lives and persons X. A. 3. 2. 20.
So, I wonder if defining such a narrow subcategory of coordinations of nouns governed by a single article is all that useful, especially compared to a prototype approach.

Stephen
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

MAubrey
Posts: 1028
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT

Post by MAubrey » August 5th, 2011, 3:49 pm

sccarlson wrote:Prototype theory sounds like an excellent way to go about understanding the Granville-Sharp construction--I'm with you there--but that's not the approach Wallace used. Rather, his approach was a lot more categorical, trying to determine the exact, necessary and sufficient conditions in which the rule held.

I must admit that I found such a categorical approach quite frustrating. Many of the qualifications and exceptions seem poorly motivated except to fit a fairly small corpus. Frankly, that proposed Trinitarian exception was the last straw for me on his categorical approach, especially since he seemed very keen on applying a suitably refined Granville-Sharp rule to !@#$%^&* 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 in order to affirm a major element of Trinitarian theology.

There's got to be a better way for conceptualizing this construction, and perhaps prototype theory is the way to go. I note that the Classical Greek grammars don't seem to recognize the specific construction. Rather, they seem content to address a more general contraction with a conjunction of two or more nouns governed by a single article, without the specific qualifications and exceptions that Wallace identifies.

For example, Stéphanie Bakker, The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek (ASCP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 177 states:
In a (very small) number of cases of coordinations of identifiable entities, however, one article serves to express the identifiability of all the entities. The effect of the omission of the article with the second, third, etc. noun in the coordination is that the different entities are depicted as one whole.
Her footnote (omitted above) cites Smyth § 1143 who states:
1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion: οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί the generals and captains (the commanding officers) X. A. 2. 2. 8, τὰς μεγίστᾱς καὶ ἐλαχίστᾱς ναῦς the largest and the smallest ships (the whole fleet) T. 1. 10, ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος the calumniations and envy of the multitude P. A. 28 a. Rarely when the substantives are of different genders: περὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψῡχὰς καὶ σώματα concerning their own lives and persons X. A. 3. 2. 20.
So, I wonder if defining such a narrow subcategory of coordinations of nouns governed by a single article is all that useful, especially compared to a prototype approach.

Stephen
I completely agree with you. I'm not defending Wallace himself or his approach. I'm only interested in the validity of the construction. And to the extent that Wallace provides useful data for that, I use his research.

And reading your words here above once more: I couldn't have said it better.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”