[B-Greek] Definiteness
Sean Kasabuske
alethinon61 at milwpc.com
Mon Oct 16 23:10:38 EDT 2006
Hi Brian,
Thank you for taking some time to respond to my previous post. My responses
are below yours, as usual.
Brian
> Thank you for your message. Let me say first, that I believe that at this
> point, we are talking more about English translation and the sense of the
> indefinite article in English more than Greek grammar etc. So I am not
> sure
> how much longer we should continue this conversation on list. But since
> you
> post specific, pointed questions to me, I should do my best to answer
> within
> my time constraints.
Sean
This discussion is definitely about the Greek, Brian, don't worry about
that. Yes, it is also about how to represent the Greek in English, but that
is unavoidable, as this is an English speaking forum, and we can only
describe what the Greek means in English. Further, the differences of
opinion center on how to represent the Greek in English translation. I can
demonstrate logically that every one of the indefinite singular count nouns
in Dixon's list is represented accurately by the English translations I
offered. It remains to be seen whether anyone can demonstrate logically
that the English translations are inadequate in some definable way that is
truly demonstrable from a grammatical standpoint.
Brian
> I actually think that I can cut through a lot of the discussion with some
> general points or observations. I think I have stated what I see in the
> Greek that is not present in the English translations -- emphasis on
> quality
> rather than on membership in a class. Coupled with this, I don't think the
> English indef article gives this sense as clearly as an anarthrous
> preverbal
> PN. I think you show that it can be used in this sense. And I had already
> said
> that it could. It's just a matter of a different sense of the likely
> impact of the indef article in Eng. But I agree with you that
> qualitativeness is within the semantic range of the Eng indefinite article
> (IA). However, I don't believe it is "well within" it as you put it. That
> is, I don't think it is a typical use of it (or else you would find such a
> use in standard dictionaries; for your convenience I took the liberty of
> copying in Webster's online entry for "a" before the copy of your message
> below), and so could be misleading to an Eng reader of a translation in
> certain circumstances.
Sean
All three illustrations that I provided are very common usages of the
indefinite in English, Brian. So I have to disagree with you when you say
that qualitativeness is not "well within" the semantic range of the English
indefinite. The three illustrations I offered could be multiplied a
thousand times. They are quite typical of common English usage.
Brian
>Again, I have said and maintain that it is usually not a bad translation to
>use IA, but I don't think it as an exact match for the sense of the Greek
>as you seem to think. One interesting difference is that in the case of
>anarthrous preverbal
> PN's, word order actually seems suggest that quality is being stressed in
> addition to any contextual factors. There is no such clue in an Eng
> translation.
Sean
Brian, every one of the indefinite count PN-V's in Dixon's list can be
logically shown to be comparable to the English indefinite. Please provide
evidence that "quality" is suggested by preverbal PNs to the extent that the
English indefinite is not the right tool to convey the sense of the Greek.
You say that the word order "seems to suggest that quality is being
stressed", yet not one of Dixon's indefinite count PN-V's supports this
assertion in such a way that negates my view that the sense is accurately
conveyed by the English indefinite. Indeed, some if not all of the
indefinite count nouns in Dixon's list are actually categorical indefinites,
not "qualitative" indefinites, and this is not difficult to demonstrate.
What I see possibly suggested by fronting in some cases is an emphasis on
the noun insofar as the noun is given focus (similar to the emphasis created
in English when we rearrange a sentence from the active to the passive
voice), not on the qualities as distinct or severed from the object/entity
that owns them.
Brian
> Let me give you an example that I think illustrates my view: 1 John 1:5. I
> think it would be inaccurate and misleading to translate, "God is a
> light." I believe the best translation is, "God is light", suggesting in
> no way that God is a member of the class of lights, but simply asserting
> that he is thoroughly characterized by light (whatever one will interpret
> that to mean). One could translate, "God is a light", and then hope that
> the reader will recognize that the IA can be used to highlight
> qualitativeness, and gain that perspective on the statement. But that
> would not be the immediate impact of reading the statement and I think it
> would be a misleading translation. See further responses inserted into
> your message below.
Sean
I agree that God is not one among a class of lights. However, "light" in
"God is light" is not a singular count noun, but a mass noun instead. Since
mass nouns don't take the indefinite article, they have no bearing on how a
singular count noun might be accurately represented in English.
I think that confusion could be avoided if those who contemplate PN-Vs kept
in mind the underlying world of human conceptualization that gave birth to
the categorization of nouns into "mass" and "count" in the first place.
Mass nouns refer to that which is continuous, and therefore refer to things
in the following three categories: (i) substance (=flesh), (ii) quality (=
blue), , (iii) activity (=work). Count nouns refer to items which exist as
separate and distinct units (=king, sinner, pen, book). "Light" as in that
which shines forth from the sun (literally) or from God (symbolically) is
mass, whereas "light" as in a lamp that one might turn on so he or she can
see, or as in a star in the heavens, is count.
Many nouns commonly function as count in one context and mass in another.
You can eat "a chicken" for dinner (count) or have a plate "of chicken" for
dinner (mass). You can butcher "a lamb" (count) and then have "some lamb"
for dinner (mass). Many nouns that aren't normally "mass" can become so
according to usage, just as many nouns that are not normally count can
become so according to usage. "Dog" is normally a count noun, but in
countries where people eat dogs, it would be perfectly natural for one of
them to say "I had dog (mass) for dinner". If a community of cannibals
where to open a MacDonald's, they would probably serve quarter-pound
manbergers. On the other hand, one could say that Quaker is "an oil" that
surpasses other oils in quality, thereby transforming the normally mass
"oil" into a count noun.
The problem that you and other proponents of the "qualitative" theory face
is that, on the one had, you reject the notion that singular count nouns are
literally adjectivized when placed before the verb (i.e. that they literally
become adjectives), yet, on the other hand, you simultaneously want to
excise the very property that makes them *count* nouns in the first place,
i.e. there object/entity/unit property. This is somewhat ironic when one
considers what often happens when we substantivize an adjective: it takes on
an object/entity/unit property! You can hardly get more "qualitative" than
an adjective, right? Yet once an adjective is substantivized translators
often add terms that clarify the substantival sense. Note:
John 6:70: APEKRIQH AUTOIS hO IHSOUS OUK EGW hUMAS TOUS DWDEKA EXELEXAMHN
KAI EX hUMWN hEIS __DIABOLOS ESTIN__
DIABOLOS is a substantivized adjective in this sentence, and the function of
substantivization imports an object/entity/unit attribute that the literal
NASB captures by offering this translation: "a devil"
Galatians 3:9: hWSTE hOI EK PISTEWS EULOGOUNTAI SUN TWi __PISTWi ABRAAM__
The adjective PISTWi is substantivized in the literal NASB and rendered
"believer" (=one who believes).
1 Timothy 1:9: EIDWS TOUTO hOTI DIKAIWi NOMOS OU KEITAI ANOMOIS DE KAI
ANUPOTAKTOIS ASEBESI KAI __hAMARTWLOIS__ ANOSIOIS KAI BEBHLOIS PATROLWiAIS
KAI MHTROLWiAIS ANDROFONOIS
The adjective hAMARTWLOIS is taken as a substantive, and is rendered in the
literal NASB, "sinners".
John 1:18: QEON OUDEIS hEWRAKEN PWPOTE __MONOGENHS__ QEOS hO WN EIS TON
KOLPON TOU PATROS EKEINOS EXHGHSATO
The NET Bible substantivizes MONOGENHS and offers this translation of the
adjective, "The only one".
So, the question that you must resolve is this: If the most qualitative
words we have -- adjectives -- take on an object/entity/unit attribute when
substantivized, then on what logical basis do you excise the substantival
nature from fronted count nouns? This question is especially pertinent
since you have recently stated that PNs *do not* become adjectives when
fronted. So they are substantives and thereby have the nature of
substantives. Those who would suggest otherwise have the burden to prove
it, and I believe that I can demonstrate logically that such proof is not
found in Dixon's thesis, one of the two substantiating sources for Wallace's
qualitative-noun theory.
Sincerely,
Sean Kasabuske
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list