[B-Greek] Definiteness
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Sun Oct 8 12:24:53 EDT 2006
Dear Iver,
I am sorry to say so, but it seems to me that you in this post have played
the role of a politician by making things so philosophical that the real
issues are lost. I think we should be much more down to the earth when we
explore the rules of Greek grammar, and try to find the possible meanings of
Greek phrases and clauses. If we become too philosophical, how can Bible
translation be possible at all? I do not think list-members will benefit
much
from discussions on this level, but I have a few comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: "BG" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Definiteness
Dear Rolf,
Thanks for these clarifications. Let me comment below (I sometimes cannot
get the brackets to work.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Definiteness
Dear Iver,
David Crystal (2001) "A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics" defines
"definiteness" this way: "A term used in GRAMMAR and SEMANTICS to refer to a
specific, identifiable entity (or class of entities); it is ususally
contrasted with INDEFINITE (less often "non-definite"). Definiteness in
English is generally conveyed through the use of definite DETERMINERS (such
as this, my) and especially through the definite article, the."
I used "definitness" in this sense.
Crystal defines "indefiniteness" this way: "A term used in GRAMMAR and
SEMANTICS to refer to an entity (or class of entities) which is not capable
of specific identification; it is contrasted with DEFINITE. Indefiniteness
in English is usually conveyed through the use of the indefinite article, a,
or an indefinite PRONOUN (such as one, some etc.)."
Iver:
I can see that I don't agree with Crystal, and his failure to distinguish
between grammar and semantics doesn't help.
In gramamtical terms I can accept a certain value in talking about
definiteness as a feature of a noun phrase like "this
man" or "my arm", but notice that it cannot be used of a simple noun without
a definite determiner. The significance of
a definite or indefinite article with a noun or noun phrase is best handled
in discourse studies rather than traditional
grammar a al Crystal or even in semantics. This definition has been made
obsolete by discourse linguistics as far as I
can see.
RF:
It is your privilege to disagree with Crystal. However, if you ask a
linguist at the University of Oslo for the best dictionary of linguistic
terms, Crystal´s book is recommended. To say that discourse linguistics has
made his definition obsolete puts discourse linguistics in a place it
definitely does not deserve. Harald Weinrich ("Tempus: Besprochende und
Erzählte Welt," 1964), one of the poineers of discourse linguistics,
relativized tense, but he admitted that discourse linguistics is
"unassailable". In my view, the great weight put on discourse analysis in
modern studies of dead langauges has done much harm, because discourse
linguistics in its essence is
circular.
Rolf:
A concrete substantive (concrete in contrast to abstract) is generic, i.e.,
it belongs to a class.
Iver:
It is quite unusual to define "generic" as "belonging to a class". Is that
from Crystal, too? The generic-specific
continuum has to do with the size of the membership of the class. Some
concrete substantives are more generic than
others.
RF
Webster´s define "generic" thus: "of, applied to, or referring to a kind,
class, or group; inclusive or general: opposed to specific, special."
Crystal has a similar definition: "A term used in GRAMMATICAL and SEMANTIC
analysis
for a LEXICAL stem or PROPOSITION which refers to a class of entities."
Rolf:
There are also "singular nouns" where the substantive
is one of its kind, e.g. "God," "the sun".
Iver:
But the concept of "sun" as the central planet of a solar system is not one
of its kind. There are many different suns.
It is only if we restrict ourselves to our own solar system, that there is
only one sun/Sun.
Whether "God" is one of its kind is also debatable. That depends on one's
presuppositions and the context. It is a
convention in English to use a capital letter to indicate uniqueness, but
this is not relevant for the exegesis of QEOS
in Greek. It is only relevant for translation into English.
RF:
I do not think you understand the term "singular noun". One place where
this term is discussed is "Collins Cobuild English Grammar" (1993) pp. 11,
12. The first example used in this book for a singular noun is "the sun".
Rolf:
The real issue is: Can a Greek substantive without the article loose its
substantival nature and become an adjective when it occurs before the verb?
Iver:
I don't agree that this is the real issue. The noun doesn't change from a
substantive to an adjective, since this is a
purely morphological description and has nothing to do with word order.
However, a substantive can be used semantically
to describe another substantive in the same way as an adjective can be used.
RF:
The issue that was raised at the beginning of the thread from which this
thread is an offshoot, was the definition of Wallace regarding PNs
preceeding
the verb. Should the term "qualitative," indefinite," and "definite" in
Wallace´s definition be viewed as mutually exclusive concepts? Or are there
only two mutually exclusive terms, namely, "definite" and "indefinite," to
the effect that a substantive without article can be both "indefinite" and
"qualitative" at the same time?
As a Bible translator you must understand that this is an important issue,
since the answer has a bearing on our translation of important passages,
such as John 1:1. I suppose that he who asked the original question wanted
to know how our understanding of PNs preceeding the verb in other places in
the NT could help make rules that could be applied to the PN preceeding the
verb in John 1:1. In case you still do not see the issue I will try to give
an outline. Leaving theology alone and only using linguistics the issue is:
Given that hO QEOS and QEOS are two different referents, the question is how
to understand QEOS without article. Lexically speaking QEOS is a generic
count-noun; one referred to by QEOS can be counted and belong to the genus
QEOI. In John 1:1 QEOS comes before the verb, and the question (with
Wallace´s rule in mind) is: the fact that the PN comes before the verb, does
this change QEOS from being a generic count-noun making it into a quality
(divine)? Or, does QEOS retain its/his character of being one member of the
genus QEOI, but its/his characteristics as such are stressed? I am not aware
of any language which has word classes where a generic count-noun can loose
these characteristics on the besis of discourse function (word order).
Therefore I challenge Wallace´s rule (if Wallace´s meaning is that the three
concepts are mutually exclusive) and I ask for examples. In other words, if
it is true that most PNs occurring before the verb loose their
indefiniteness (being one member of a class) and instead refers to quality,
then at least one or a few clearcut examples must be found. But where are
they? If such examples cannot be found, the whole rule is unneccessary,
since then the mutually exclusive characeristics are definiteness versus
indefiniteness.
Rolf:
In other words, will a generic count-noun loose its membership in its class,
and can it no longer be counted when it occurs before the verb?
Iver:
Again the wrong question, IMO.
RF: A question should not be said to be wrong; it should be answered. I
think that most list-members do understand the issue I have outlined in this
post and the previous one.
Rolf:
Wallace and
others seem to imply just that, and in order to find out whether this is
their view and whether it is well founded I rephrased Wallace´s rule, and
challenged its proponents to give evidence for it. Your discussion seemed to
me to signal that the answer is No. And I wanted, and still wants, to know
if I had understood you correctly.
So let me rephrase my question to you: Can a generic count-noun standing
before the verb and having no article cease to be a generic count-noun, and
become an uncount-noun or a quality? Or must we, when we believe that
quality is in focus, say that here we have a genric count-noun whose
qualities are stressed rather than its membership in its class or its mere
existence?
Iver:
I am afraid you will find it difficult to understand my position if you
insist on squeezing my comments into a rigid
framework that I think is misguided. We have moved away from Greek, so I
will not comment further along these lines.
RF:
I did not insist in squeezing your comments in any way. Your first post was
instructive and down to the earth, although you did not comment on what I
believe was the real issues. On the basis of my understanding of your words
I asked a few sincere questions. Philosophical reasonings move us away from
Greek, but the issue of quality versus indefiniteness is at the very heart
of Greek grammar.
Iver Larsen
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list