[b-greek] Re: Predicative/attributive - position and function

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2001 - 12:10:28 EST


I want here to respond to Iver's 'challenge' also and shall do so by way of
comment on Moon's message, because he says some things I think are
important by way of at least partial dissatisfaction with Iver's
formulation. As I assume that interested parties have either saved Moon's
message of 11:56 PM -0500 1/20/01 or can consult it at the B-Greek web
site, I'm going to cut large parts of it. I'm also going to append a fairly
lengthy account from Smyth's grammar at the Perseus web site which offers a
more intelligent (I think!) account of "predicate position" than I did and
which also explains adequately why the one passage in Acts with which Iver
taunted me, is not the "anomaly" to the traditional account of these
matters that I was too quick to suppose it was. In fact, Allen Jacobson in
his first post to the list yesterday has already pointed to the right
answer about that; I just want to cite what Smyth has to say on the matter.

By way of general response, let me say first that (a) I think it's probably
best to keep the terminology clear and speak only of "attributive position"
and "predicate position"; I've confusedly used "predicative" position in a
way that has misled my own assertions on this usage; (b) I am not yet
convinced that these traditional terms, "attributive position" and
"predicate position" with respect to the article have outlived their
usefulness as pedagogical instruments (and that is no small concern). Even
if I concede that Iver's formulation adequately describes the phenomena of
placement of adjectives relative to noun and article in noun phrases (and
I'm halfway willing to do so), I still think that it's easier to explain
the basic positioning of KALON TO hALS, TO hALS KALON, TO KALON hALS and TO
hALS TO KALON as well as of PAS hO KOSMOS or hO KOSMOS PAS or hOUTOS hO
ANHR or hO ANHR hOUTOS by using the terminology of "attributive position"
and "predicate position" rather than to lump them all together as NP's and
sort out the different meanings of all these NP's in terms of where the
adjective or demonstrative or quantitative word stands in any particular
NP. It may well be that these two formulations are "six of one and half a
dozen of the other," but for now it seems to me that the traditional
terminology works better pedagogically. This may also be true, I hasten to
add, regarding my hope to offer a better explanation of voice in the
ancient Greek verb, eliminate such terms as "deponent" and distinctions
between "middle deponent" and "passive deponent" and show that perhaps a
majority of GNT verbs normally understood as "passive" are really "middle."
It may be that the terminology I develop to introduce voice pedagogically
turns out to be so unwieldy that it can't really be recommended to teachers
and students of Beginning Greek.

At 11:56 PM -0500 1/20/01, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
>Dear Iver,
>thanks for the great insight. But I have some problems with your
>explanation as well.
>
[omission]
>[Iver]
>> Since KALOS is a regular, descriptive adjective, if it had been part of
>>an NP
>> with an explicit N it would have been positioned differently:
>> TO KALON hALAS the good salt (as opposed to bad salt)
>> TO DENDRON TO KALON the good tree (as opposed to another good thing)
>
>[Moon]
>
>KALON in TO KALON hALAS is attributive, because it specifies an attribute
>of
>hALAS to determine the referent of hALAS. I have no problem with saying
>that it is in an attribute position. TO DENDRON TO KALON is really two
>phrases combined into one, as Carl said: "The tree, i.e. the good one".
>Hence
>TO KALON is an apposition to TO DENDRON. KALON is attributive but so with
>respect to the implied noun one/thing, rather than DENDRON.
>So, KALON is attributive in the same way in both examples. It is confusing
>to say that KALON in TO DENDRON TO KALON comes after the modified noun
>DENDRON. In fact, KALON comes before the implied modified noun one/thing.
>attributive with respect to the implied noun thing.
>
>But I do have problem with saying
>that PANTES in PANTES hOI MAQHTAI or hOI MAQHTAI PANTES is in a predicate
>position, because PANTES does not act as a predicate in the noun phrase
>PANTES hOI MAQHTAI. PANTES contributes to the determination of the
>referent of hOI MAQHTAI. But it does not specify an attribute or
>property of MAQHTAI, but the quantity of them. It should be explained
>why such quantifiers position differently from attributive adjectives
>relative
>to the modified nouns. But it is confusing to say that these
>quantifiers are in a predicate position to the modified nouns.
>We had better invent a better name if we want to name their
>position. See below about this.

I think that being careful with the term "predicate position" one can
eliminate the misunderstanding that I was myself guilty of--speaking of a
"predicative position" and postulating that somehow a word like PAS or
hOUTOS in that position thereby becomes a predicate of the article-noun
phrase outside of which PAS or hOUTOS stands.

>[Iver]
>> Let us look at some examples with demonstratives:
>>
>> Matt 12:45 THi GENEAi TAUTHI THi PONHRAi - To this evil group-of-people
>
>[Moon]
>As I indicated above, here we have three noun phrases arranged
>appositionally:
>"To the generation, this, the evil one". Saying that three NP's are linked
>appositionally can explain why we do not have THi TAUTHi GENEAi.

I still think that's the case and that it more easily explains the
positioning and alteration of emphasis.

>[Iver]
>PAS is a strong
>> quantifier which is inherently emphatic and the unmarked order is therefore
>> before the noun. For the demonstratives there is no marked or unmarked
>>order.
>> Whatever word comes first is relatively more prominent. (The special
>>cases of
>> PAS occurring between the article and noun are then still "exceptions" which
>> could be explained by PAS here functioning not as a strong quantifier,
>>but as
>> a descriptive adjective, somewhat akin to the difference between "all" and
>> "whole" in English, where "all" occurs before the article, but "whole"
>>after >> it.)
>
>[Moon]
>
>As I argued with Carl, I would think PANTES in
>PANTES hOI MAQHTAI or hOI MAQHTAI is a collective pronoun and
>PANTES and hOI MAQHTAI are appositional to each other.
>hOI MAQHTAI PANTES = the disciples, i.e. all of them.
>PANTES hOI MAQHTAI = all of them, i.e. the disciples.
>
>In sum, PAS acts like demonstratives, and can be
>appositionally combined with other NPs to form complicated NPs.

In fact the instances in Acts of forms of PAS positioned within the article
are not anomalous, after all; rather all are instances of collective usage:

17:25 ... AUTOS DIDOUS PASI ZWHN KAI PNOHN KAI TA PANTA
19:7 HSAN DE hOI PANTES ANDRES hWSEI DWDEKA
20:18 ... hUMEIS EPISTASQE, APO PRWTHS hHMERAS AF' hHS EPEBHN EIS THN
ASIAN, PWS MEQ' hUMWN TON PANTA CRONON EGENOMHN.
27:37 HMEQA DE hAI PASAI YUCAI EN TWi PLOIWi DIAKOSIAI hEBDOMHKONTA hEX.

Here's what Smyth (cited from the Perseus web site--see URL at bottom of
citation--says about the positioning and distinct meanings of PAS in
attributive and predicate positions (rather than transliterate the Greek
passages cited--generally from older Attic authors, but I think that the
principle involved is still the same in Hellenistic Greek--I have kept them
in Beta code, which I think is pretty clear and some may even read better
than our standard B-Greek ASCII pattern that I've used above for the Acts
citations.

====================================
PECULIARITIES OF POSITION WITH THE ARTICLE
1174. pa=s (and in the strengthened forms a(/pa_s, su/mpa_s all together).
a. In the attributive position pa=s denotes the whole regarded as the sum
of all its parts (the sum total, the collective body): oi( pa/ntes poli=tai
the whole body of citizens, h( pa=sa *sikeli/a_ the whole of Sicily,
a)poktei=nai tou\s a(/pantas *mutilhnai/ous to put to death the entire
Mitylenean population Thuc. 3.36.

N.--Hence, with numbers, oi( pa/ntes, ta\ su/mpanta in all: e(cako/sioi
kai\ xi/_lioi oi( pa/ntes 1600 in all Thuc. 1.60.

b. In the predicate (and usual) position pa=s means all: pa/ntes oi(
poli=tai or (often emphatic) oi( poli=tai pa/ntes all the citizens
(individually), peri\ pa/ntas tou\s qeou\s h)sebh/ka_si kai\ ei)s a(/pa_san
th\n po/lin h(marth/ka_sin they have committed impiety towards all the gods
and have sinned against the whole State Lys. 14.42.

c. Without the article: pa/ntes poli=tai all (conceivable) citizens,
misqwsa/menoi pa/ntas a)nqrw/pous hiring every conceivable person Lys.
12.60.

N. 1.--In the meaning pure, nothing but, pa=s is strictly a predicate and
has no article: ku/klw| frourou/menos u(po\ pa/ntwn polemi/wn hemmed in by
a ring of guards all of whom are his enemies ( = pa/ntes u(f' w(=n
frourei=tai pole/mioi/ ei)si) Plat. Rep. 579b. So pa=sa kaki/a_ utter
baseness.

N. 2.--The article is not used with pa=s if the noun, standing alone, would
have no article.

N. 3.--In the singular, pa=s often means every: su\n soi\ pa=sa o(do\s
eu)/poros with you every road is easy to travel Xen. Anab. 2.5.9, pa=sa
qa/lassa every sea Thuc. 2.41.
====================================
The relevant three web pages of Smyth on attributive and predicate position
and "peculiarities" may be found at (watch out for the word-wrap):
        http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup=smyth+1154&vers=english&display=Beta+code

--

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:48 EDT