From: Andrew Kulikovsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 22 1997 - 10:41:40 EDT
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> I thought we had been over this particular ground before. In any case, I
> think the argument here is fallacious: one need only substitute the
> classical illustrative elements ANQRWPOS and SWKRATHS and re-write the
> clause as ANQRWPOS HN hO SWKRATHS to realize that (1) although hO SWKRATHS
> is definite, ANQRWPOS is not; and (2) The translation "Socrates was a human
> being" is not only grammatically possible, but about as literally accurate
> as is possible.
Cral, if we did cover this ground before, I missed it.
what then, is the significance of both nouns being in the nominative? Why
is it ANQROPOS instead of ANQROPON? (or QEOS instead of QEON?)
I don't understand.
> There is nothing in the grammar itself that invalidates "The Word was a
> god" as a translation. It is other factors in the context that will have to
> determine whether this is a legitimate understanding of the clause.
what contextual factors?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:29 EDT