On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:43:20 EST GregStffrd@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 03/01/2001 8:15:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > dixonps@juno.com writes: > > << In every case I was looking for the leading nuance of the > noun and assumed it could be either definite, indefinite or > qualitative, but only one of these. I never considered that a > predicate nominative would receive definite or indefiniteness > emphasis simply by fronting it. I would like to see that > demonstrated. >> > > > Dear Paul: > > I am aware of your statistics, having in hand a copy of your > fine thesis. However, there is no evidence that I can see > that supports your conclusions regarding qualitative nouns. > There are opinions about what the context suggests or how > a purely qualitative meaning for a particular term could fit > into various contexts, but I see nothing that proves that a > particular fronted PN does not retain its indefinite or definite > semantic while the noun's qualities are highlighted. I am assuming an anarthrous predicate nominative has a particular nuance in the mind of the author, one and only one of the following: definiteness, indefiniteness, or qualitativeness. What evidence do you have for a predicate nominative carrying simultaneous nuances of two or more, for example, QEOS in 1:1 being both qualitative and indefinite? Of course, if we define qualitativeness as being a subset of indefiniteness, then sure. But, the common understanding is that the three are mutually exclusive by definition. > > Also, I never said that the PN's indefiniteness or definiteness > would be emphasized by fronting; I do not believe that, either. > What I said was "the qualities of [indefinite or definite nouns] > receive emphasis by means of fronting." I do not believe that > any PNs somehow lose or do not convey an indefinite or > definite semantic simply because they are fronted. Be careful you don't fall into the same error as Colwell and others who illogically affirmed the converse of his rule (the exposure of that fallacy was one of the contributions of my thesis). By saying "the qualities of indefinite or definite nouns receive emphasis by means of fronting," you are saying nothing that contributes to the argument. Sure, if we know the nouns are definite or indefinite, then by pushing them forward we are emphasizing them. But, this says nothing about whether an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb is definite or indefinite, nor the likelihood of such. In order to ascertain that, one has to consider all occurrences of the anarthrous predicate nominative by the author, then contextually determine the definiteness, indefiniteness or qualitativeness. That is what Colwell should have done, but did not (he considered only definite predicate nominatives). It is what I did in my thesis. Paul Dixon --- 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