[b-greek] Re: Smart's less contrived than Sharp's

From: Dan Parker (stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: Fri Feb 02 2001 - 19:32:51 EST

> Dan Parker wrote [snipped]:
> > The rule as first proposed by Granville Sharp did not exclude plurals.
> > However, Sharp's revisionists have added exclusions to Sharp's original
> > rule to appear to make in an iron-clad fact. Since modern Sharp's
> > revisionists have changed the rule so substantially to fit their needs
> > I wonder why they still continue to call it Sharp's rule.
> While I have no real desire to re-enter this thread in general (which I had imagined
> was long dead), I do wonder where this particular statement comes from. The
> exclusion of plural substantives from Sharp's construction is implicit in Sharp's
> initial statement of his rule, on the first page of his article: his reference to hO
> is later clarified as being a reference to hO as opposed to hOI. This exlusion of
> plurals is made explicit on page 6 of the article, although Sharp notes here that
> sometimes plurals will fulfill the rule, as well.
> In short, the multitude of exceptions were Sharp's own, and not the addition of
> later writers. Indeed, many grammars misquote and misapply Sharp, because they
> leave out his exceptions.
> Daniel

Daniel, hello!
I understand your point, but Sharp himself said "there is no exception
or instance of the like mode of expression, that I know of, which
necessarily requires a construction different from what is here laid
down, EXCEPT the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number; in
which case there are many exceptions."

The very fact that Sharp said that plurals were EXCEPTIONS to the rule
shows he did not exclude them from the rule otherwise they could not
be considered exceptions.

Today folks are careful to state "Sharp's" rule like the following,
which makes it appear that there are no exceptions to the rule when in
fact Sharp said there were.

        1. both are personal
        2. both are singular
        3. both are non-proper (i.e., common terms, not proper names)
        4. neither are quasi-proper names.

Smart's is a superior rule in that it does not have arbitrary or
contrived exceptions, and that was my point. However I will grant that
Sharp did understand that plurals were an exception to his rule and
that this was not discovered by someone other than Sharp. Of course,
the same cannot be said for quasi-proper names.

Dan Parker

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 - 15:36:49 EDT