[B-Greek] omision of the definite article
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Feb 20 17:04:10 EST 2008
On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:35 AM, Harold Holmyard wrote:
> HH: No, Levinsohn's principle is that an extra measure of attention is
> added to a proper name by adding the article. The principle is not
> that
> an extra measure of attention is added by not having the definite
> article.
Harold,
I suggest you take another look at Levinsohn:2000 chapter 9.
G.Cooper (1.50.3.4) discusses both the referential aspects of [hO]
QEOS and the use of the article in different authors. It appears that
the historians Herod. and Thucid. preferred to use the article with
QEOS, QEON, QEOU, QEWi and that the anarthrous form was *marked*. On
the other hand Attic tragedy was much less likely to use the article
with any substantive and it seems like the articular form of QEOS,
QEON, QEOU, QEWi is *marked* in Aesch., Soph. and Eurip. I didn't
look at the comedies.
QEOS almost always has a unique known referent in the NT so we would
expect to see it used with the article even when it hasn't been used
before in a particular discourse. There is no need to introduce QEOS
into a NT discourse since the cognitive framework of the NT authors
and audience included QEOS as a global VIP who was always there,
mentioned or not. For this reason alone the anarthrous form is
*marked* and draws attention.
The criteria for markedness is explained in great detail in Rutger
Allan, Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study of Polysemy.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list