[B-Greek] Definiteness
Sean Kasabuske
alethinon61 at milwpc.com
Sun Oct 8 16:16:56 EDT 2006
Hi Rolf,
I'm glad that you are making an effort to proceed with this discussion in a
way that might bring greater clarity to the issue of the semantic force of
fronted PNs. I asked (last month, I think) what scientifically developed,
linguistic process was used as a paradigm against which one might test the
theory that a count noun looses its object/entity characteristic simply by
virtue of its placement in relation to the verb. I did not get an answer to
that question, nor have I found one in any of the grammars I've checked.
As I previously noted, in English we can rearrange a sentence from the
active to the passive voice, and this involves placing the predicate before
the verb. Although this brings the predicate into focus, often causing a
subtle but useful shift in emphasis, it never causes a shift in a word's
meaning, and certainly never causes a count noun to become non-count. So I've
wondered why this should occur in Greek? I hope that the manner in which you
are addressing this issue might shed some light on this question.
With that said, I want to address part of your question:
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?
Sean:
On page 263 of Wallace's 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics', he has chart
where he illustrates his view of the semantic range of anarthrous predicate
nominatives (chart 27). He presents three interlaced circles: A small
circle on the left represents definiteness; a large circle in the middle
represents qualitativeness; and a small circle on the right represents
indefiniteness. The circles interlace to show that, in Wallace's view,
there can be overlap between the categories. He specifically states the
following:
"The chart illustrates the fact that anarthrous pre-verbal predicate
nominatives usually fall within the qualitative-definite range, while
anarthrous post-verbal predicate nominatives usually fall within the
qualitative-indefinite range."
Then, on page 266, he says the following in reference to the nouns he puts
in the indefinite category: "...many ...might better be classified as
indefinite-qualitative or qualitative-indefinite..."
Thus, if I understand Wallace correctly, he seems to allow that nouns can
be,
1. Definite
2. Definite-qualitative
3. Qualitative
4. Qualitative-indefinite
5. Indefinite
Harner also didn't seem to deny overlap, as he said that PNs such as QEOS at
1:1c were "primarily" qualitative, and this seems to imply the possibility
of a secondary sense (though I'm not sure that "secondary sense" is the best
way to describe a count noun's inherent object/entity characteristic).
Since he clearly rules out definiteness, that secondary sense would have to
be indefiniteness. The only person (=person who has been published) I'm
aware of who has stated that definite, indefinite, and qualitative are
exclusive categories that do not permit overlap is Paul Dixon, and he did so
on this very forum in a previous dialogue dealing with John 1:1. However,
even Dixon acknowledged that a noun which is not definite is "technically"
indefinite (see p. 9 of his thesis). He distinguishes between indefinite
and qualitative nouns for the sake of "expedience" (p. 9).
We can observe that 50% or more of the preverbal count PNs in John are
translated into English with the indefinite article. Some have argued that
this is due to English idiom, and that the English translations do not
necessarily accurately convey the sense of the underlying Greek. This is
stated as if it answered the problem. However, to me it merely causes other
crucial questions to emerge, none of which has been addressed in any of the
grammars or discussions I've read:
1. Is there something about the nature of singular count nouns that
logically accounts for the English idiom whereby they are normally preceded
by the indefinite article when they are indefinite or qualitative? If so,
what is that "something", and what potential bearing might it have on our
understanding of nouns in Greek?
2. If qualitative count nouns make perfect sense when translated into
English with the indefinite article, then on what demonstrably valid basis
do we determine that the English translation does not accurately convey the
sense of the underlying Greek? It seems unsatisfactory to suggest that the
mere fact that they convey "nature" makes them loose their object/entity
characteristic.
Sincerely,
Sean Kasabuske
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Definiteness
Dear Iver,
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list