From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 08 1998 - 02:37:44 EST
On Wed, 07 Jan 1998 12:54:25 -0500 Jonathan Robie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>At 12:16 PM 1/7/98 EST, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>Hmm, unless the anarthrous predicate nominative is a proper name, is it
>>possible it can still be definite, that is, that the leading nuance on
>>the noun is definiteness? If so, can you give me an example?
>With a pronoun: John 1:49 SU EI hO hUIOS TOU QEOU
>With a demonstrative: 1 John 5:6 hOUTOS ESTIN hO ELQWN DI' hUDATOS >KAI
>With a common noun: Rom 1:16 DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN, cf 1 Cor 1:18 (you
may prefer qualitative for this)
Wouldn't you want to opt for SU and hOUTOS as being the subjects, not
predicate nominatives, in numbers 1 and 3 above?
The other two may be good examples.
>In the search I did, incidentally, names or titles accounted for a
>large proportion of the anarthrous predicates, but perhaps I did a
Yes, that's the feel I get.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:47 EDT