[B-Greek] Definiteness

Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Wed Oct 18 02:21:16 EDT 2006


Sean,

See my responses inserted in yours below preceded by **.

God bless,

Brian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sean Kasabuske" <alethinon61 at milwpc.com>
To: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Definiteness


> 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.

**You did not really deal with my counter example and the basic point I make 
out of it. I could also provide similar anaysis of your other examples. At 
this point, it just may be that we disagree about the force of the Eng IA. I 
think the default sense of it typically suggests membership in a larger 
class, as standard dictionaries appear to confirm while not listing the 
qualitative sense you are advocating. Nevertheless, as I have stated, I do 
think the IA can carry this force, but this usually needs to be forced upon 
the reader/hearer from the context. But we can agree to disagree!

> 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.

**I think I have by presenting my view of the Eng IA, on which we disagree. 
(I still think we seem to be talking more about Eng than 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.

**I think your argument based on the distinction between count and mass 
nouns is incorrect. First, Eng mass nouns can take the IA according to the 
dictionary entry I quoted for you (used as a function word before a mass 
noun to denote a particular type or instance <a bronze made in ancient 
times>). Second, if the same word can be either count or mass, how do you 
determine which it is? Is it not from context and usage? And does not the 
mass usage which does not take the IA conspicuously coincide with when the 
noun also appears to be more qualitative? It is debatable in many instances 
whether a noun that can be either count or mass is one or the other in any 
specific usage. Using the "God is light" example, one could take it the 
other way. One could take it to indicate that God is a light (of sorts; 
metaphorically speaking no doubt) in a class of lights. What reasons would 
you give for taking it as a mass noun here? Could not God be viewed here as 
a source of light more than that he is characterized by light? And one might 
even note that the former implies the latter. Moving on to another example 
you have given, what is to say that "prophet" cannot be a mass noun in Greek 
though it is not in Eng when other nouns we normally think of as count can 
be mass? Third, all along you have maintained that the indef article can 
carry the force of a primary qualitative significance. So then why is the IA 
not appropriate to communicate this in an example like "God is [a] light"? 
It cannot be because it is a mass rather than a count noun since you have 
maintained that the Eng IA can readily communicate this with count nouns. If 
the purpose of the statment is to characterize God as luminous or some such 
thing, then why could it not be rendered with an IA and a count noun? 
Frankly, I think the distinction between mass and count nouns is arbitrary 
(N.B. not the contrast itself, but) as applied to the question of 
qualitative nouns and the use of the Eng. IA. Fourth, the fact that the 
Greek language sometimes uses the def article where Eng requires the IA, and 
has no IA, yet nouns with no definite article can be definite, suggests that 
we do not have a one to one correlation between the way Eng and Greek use 
articles, and that one cannot simply assume that any noun without a def. 
art. can automatically be rendered with the Eng IA, or that any noun that is 
not absolutely definite can most effectively be rendered with the Eng IA. It 
seems to me that you have put yourself in a difficult position having to 
basically defend that the Eng IA is virtually  ALWAYS appropriate for Greek 
indefinites. You have shown that it is often appropriate (though I would not 
say fully satisfactory as you would) in the case of even anarthrous 
preverbal PN's. But I think it is more balanced to hold that it may or may 
not be best to use an Eng IA to render a qualitative PN.

> 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:

**I hold that qualitative nouns function adjectivally, which is different 
than saying that they become adjectives (cf. often nouns in genitive). I 
don't see this as a problem because we are talking about syntactical 
function.

> 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"

**I doubt that DIABOLOS is a substantivized adjective. The word appears to 
have been used as an adjective and a substantive from the same time period 
(see BDAG , s.v.). I won't bother to check on the following examples since 
it is not integral to my view.

> 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.

**I think this argument is vitiated by the adjectival use of nouns in the 
genitive case, which do not *become* adjectives, but nevertheless function 
adjectivally and do not particularly carry a substantival syntactical sense.

>
> Sincerely,
> Sean Kasabuske
> 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list