Date: Sun Sep 07 1997 - 08:55:28 EDT
Rolf Furuli writes on 9/7/97:
> Let us then use an imagined example with a worshipper of the moon who would
> EN ARCH HN hH SELHNH, KAI hH SELHNH PROS TON hHLION, KAI hHLIOS HN hH SELHNH.
> We know that the moon and the sun are specific in a semantic sense, thus
> being uncalcelable. Suppose now that we read this text, and we know that
> the author agrees that hHLIOS is specific, but we don`t know whether he
> equates hH SELHNH with hO hHLIOS, thus making it specific, or how he views
> his moon god. Assuming his meaning is that there is only one specific sun,
> the proposition PROS should preclude any equation between the moon and the
> sun, and in the light of this, the lack of article before hHLIOS in 1c,
> most probably would give it a generic sense "and the moon was a sun". The
> example is interesting because like QEOS also hHLIOS can have a specific
> and a generic sense, and when the specific one is impossible the other
> alternative is mandatory.
> Further may the relation between what is generic (in this case also
> indefinite) and what is qualitativ be illuminated. We cannot treat hHLIOS
> as a bare adjective and translate 1c as "and the moon was shining" or
> similar. It is possible that our moon worshipper would stress the
> qualitativness of hH SELHNH, viewing it as almost as glorious as hO hHLIOS,
> but this cannot stand alone but must be anchored in the fact that the moon
> is one of class "suns".
Can't hH SELHNH (HN) PROS TON hHLION mean:
The Moon was by the light of the Sun
(The Moon shone by the light of the Sun)
The Moon was in aspect to the Sun
Thus, "And, the Moon was a sun."
Will Wagers email@example.com "Reality is the best metaphor."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:27 EDT