From: Paul S Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Nov 29 2001 - 17:18:53 EST
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:50:39 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
> predicate noun? I think I would have called it either appositive to
> dative indirect object or even attributive to MOI.
I was referring to a noun in the predicate of a sentence versus the
subject of that sentence.
> I will cite Dale Wheeler (from his brief compendium of grammar in
> Accordance) and let him comment further on this if he chooses:
> ARTICULAR (ARTHROUS) CONSTRUCTIONS:
> II. With Substantives: Dependent or Modifying Use; Used to Sharpen
> Identity of a Substantive in some way:
> B. Generic:
> 1) Definition: Distinguishes One Class or Group from Another;
> normally uses the Indefinite Article, "a," "an," to indicate this
> idea for
> Singular Substantives; Supply "as a class":
> 2) Uses: Matt 18:17; Luke 10:7; John 2:25; 1Tim 3:2
I question the above definition, especially as related to Lk 18:13. Is
the class of sinners really being distinguished here, or is it the
individual? It seems the contrast in the passage is really between the
self-righteous Pharisee and this man, not between two groups of people.
It is interesting that Dale does not cite the Lk 18 passage as an
example, or does he?
> Look at these examples.
> Mt 18:17 EAN DE KAI THS EKKLHSIAS PARAKOUSHi, ESTW SOI hWSPER hO
> KAI hO TELWNHS. Would you prefer to translate this, "... let him be
> to you
> just as THE Gentile and THE tax-collector" (assuming that some
> Gentile and some particular Tax-collector is meant).
The problem I have is simply this. Is there no difference between hWSPER
hO EQNIKOS and hWSPER EQNIKOS, and between hWSPER hO TELWNHS and hWSPER
TELWNHS? Should we translate them both the same way, giving the
impression there is no difference, or do you think the author had a
distinction in mind? If so, then perhaps we should try to retain that
distinction in our translation.
Besides, don't we do the same in the English language, as the translators
recognize elsewhere? Consider Mt 6:2 and 6:5, for examples. 6:2 says
hWSPER hOI hUPOKRITAI, translated consistently as, "as the hypocrites."
And, 6:5, hWS hOI hUPOKRITAI, translated "as the hypocrites." No, I
have no problem translating 18:7 as "just as the Gentile and the
> Lk 10:7 AXIOS hO ERGATHS TOU MISQOU; this is pretty clearly a
> generally so understood as a dominical saying. Do you suppose some
> particular workman is indicated by the article with ERGATHS?
This is not a good example for your argument, since the definiteness of
the TOU is retained in the translation, "his."
> Jn 2:25 KAI OU CREIAN EICEN hINA TIS MARTURHSHi PERI TOU ANQRWPOU;
> GAR EGINWSKEN TI HN EN TWi ANQRWPWi. Would you suppose that some
> human being is referred to by TOU ANQRWPOU and TWi ANQRWPWi? More
> likely, I
> think, ANY person at all, insofar as he's a human being, is referred
Nor does this argument for the case. The meaning may best be retained by
the translation, "in the human heart," or "in the heart of man."
I appreciate the interaction, Carl. As usual, you and others on the
Greek list, are a helpful source, especially when studying a passage to
be preached the following Sunday.
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 - 15:37:13 EDT