From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 13:01:13 EST
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:41:45 -0600 (CST) Carl William Conrad
>On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, John Kendall wrote:
>Now let me turn around and state emphatically that I don't really
>think that "subjective genitive" and "objective genitive" have some kind
>a metaphysical (or even linguistic) existence setting themselves apart
>from the chief category of pertinentive/possessive genitive. So far as
>these categories of genitive are concerned, I'm a "nominalist." The
>"subjective" and "objective" genitive are what we define them to be; I
>legislate the definition others want to use, but I think that I want to
>the use of the terms to instances where the noun really does stand for a
>verbal action for which the genitive serves to designate either the
>subject or the object.
Good point. It does boil down to definitions, as usual. If one requires
a certain notion of verbal nounage (which needs to be defined, as well)
in order for a subjective or objective genitive to exist, then so be it.
On the other hand, if one views a subjective genitive as a noun in the
genitive which can be viewed as the subject acting toward the noun to
which it is related as its object (e.g., if Paul meant to communicate in
1 Ti 4:12 that the PISTEWN were to imitate the TUPOS of Timothy), then 1
Tim 4:12 qualifies. It does seem this is the very point Paul is trying
to make by exhorting Timothy to become a TUPOS.
Has anybody ever heard of a genitive of advantage, or of any other
possible examples of such? There is a dative of advantage. Just
wondering. That would seem to be a good possibility here, if so.
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT