[B-Greek] Definiteness
Sean Kasabuske
alethinon61 at milwpc.com
Mon Oct 9 18:25:31 EDT 2006
Hi Rolf,
You noted:
"Wallace writes: :"A general rule about the construction can now be stated:
An anarthrous pre-verbal PN is normally qualitative, sometimes definite,
and only rarely indefinite.""
Then you said:
Rolf:
"If Wallace really accepts that a PN without article coming before the verb
can be either definite and qualitative or indefinite and qualitative,
this would put his general rule in a very strange light. On this background
his rule is very bad formulated, since the natural understanding of it is
that there are three different categories that cannot be combined. Moreover,
if the categories really can be combined, there simply is no rule at all
dealing with PNs coming before the verb, because in that case it is the
context that decides definiteness, indefiniteness, and quality, and not
discourse function."
Sean:
Yes, that appears to be the case, and it calls into question whether there
is any perceived value in arriving at conclusions based on percentages.
First, the very basis of the Q theory has not been shown to emerge from the
application of a scientifically structured linguistic methodology, but from
what sense this or that grammarian perceives to be in focus in a given case.
Second, different grammarians will likely arrive at different percentages,
which shows just how subjective the application of the Q theory is.
Rolf:
"So I lean back on the following observation: PNs
without article coming before the verb can be either definite or indefinite,
and sometimes the quality of the referent is stressed."
Sean:
That is in harmony with my own understanding. Indefinite count nouns are
often used in English to stress nature, but they don't loose their
object/entity characteristic when doing so (what you refer to as their
substantival nature). Thus, when people assert that (i) the only reason
many nouns are translated into English with the indefinite article is to
conform with English idiom, and (ii) that said translations don't
necessarily accurately convey the sense of the underlying Greek, I want some
scientifically measurable evidence to support this contention (i.e. #ii).
Of course rendering nouns with the indefinite article conforms to English
idiom, for it is part of English idiom that it has an indifinite article to
use, but that doesn't mean that the Greeks wouldn't have used the indefinite
article the same way if they also had an indefinite article to use. If the
English translations make perfect sense, then how does one justify the
assertion that they don't accurately reflect the sense of the Greek? By the
way, I'm speaking of verses like John 4:19; 6:70; 8:34; 8:44 (twice); 8:48;
9:17; 9:24; 9:25; 10:1; 10:13; 12:6; 18:35; 18:37, all of which Dixon views
as qualitative. I find it hard to imagine that the entire Gospel of John
only has one lonely indefinite noun, yet that is the conclusion Dixon
reached (see pages 66 and 67 of his thesis).
Sincerely,
Sean Kasabuske
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list