From: Dave Washburn (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 16:26:56 EST
> I am not sure what value there is in comparing genitive uses of QEOS with
> predicate nominatives, even if both are anarthrous. Genitives tend to have a
> certain definiteness about them, whereas predicate nominatives do not.
I thought the question of definiteness of predicate nominatives was
the question at hand. I wasn't aware that it had been so thoroughly
> With respect to the original question, and keeping entirely clear of
> theological lines, the fact remains that, grammatically, the LOGOS is "with"
> hO THEOS. Therefore, regardless of whether one decides to view the fronting
> of the PN as an indicator of pure qualitativeness (which I do not believe is
> _ever_ the case with a PN) or an emphasized definite or indefinite noun
> (which I believe is _always_ the intent behind fronting [that is, emphasis]),
> the fact remains that the LOGOS cannot _grammatically_ be shown to be the God
> he is "with."
I don't follow the logic here.
The original comment had to do with the fact that QEOS in John
1:1 was anarthrous and therefore indefinite. That's the question I
"No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
violated." C. S. Lewis
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:52 EDT