Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post Reply
nathaniel j. erickson
Posts: 49
Joined: May 16th, 2016, 9:27 am
Contact:

Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post by nathaniel j. erickson » April 11th, 2020, 2:21 pm

I was reading Apocalypse of Esdras and came across 4.36:
καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἀναστήσονται ἄφθαρτοι

Another example of this predicate nominal with a non-copulative verb that I have logged away is Acts 26.5:
ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας ἔζησα Φαρισαῖος.

They're not particularly common, but also not uncommon. I have never really seen a robust discussion of the predicate usage of nominals (either nouns or adjectives) with non-copulative verbs.

Smyth 910-12 is the only place I have really found much on it at all, and that is really slim.
910. Predicate Nouns.—Nouns (substantival or adjectival) are often used as complements to the predicate. Thus,
a. A predicate substantive is a substantive forming part of the predicate and asserting something of its substantive: Περικλῆς ᾑρέθη στρατηγός Pericles was elected general, εἵλεσθε ἐκεῖνον πρεσβευτήν you elected him envoy L. 13. 10.
b. A predicate adjective is an adjective forming part of the predicate and asserting something of its substantive: ὁ ἀνὴρ δίκαιός ἐστι the man is just, ἐνόμισαν Περικλέᾱ εὐτυχῆ they thought Pericles fortunate.
911. A predicate substantive or adjective may often be distinguished from an attributive (912) in that the former implies some form of εἶναι be. Thus, πρεσβευτήν and εὐτυχῆ in 910. After verbs signifying to name or call, εἶναι is sometimes expressed (1615).
912. Attributive Adjective.—An attributive adjective is an adjective simply added to a noun to describe it, and not forming any part of an assertion made about it: ὁ δίκαιος ἀνήρ the just-man.

Have there been any studies on the parameters of this sort of usage?
0 x


Nathaniel J. Erickson
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1823
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » April 11th, 2020, 4:58 pm

A quick search on JSTOR found nothing really relevant. I think the reason why little has been written about these is that they are somewhat intuitive, and take place only with intransitive verbs (including true passive constructions as in your example above). I'm not sure that your two examples are the same. Acts 26:5 I would classify as an appositive with the understood subject of the verb, and the ApocEsd. usage as a predicate complement (sort of like an internal accusative).

BTW, 1 Co 15:52 ἐν ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι· σαλπίσει γὰρ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐγερθήσονται ἄφθαρτοι καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

MAubrey
Posts: 1023
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post by MAubrey » April 11th, 2020, 8:08 pm

In linguistics, we call these secondary predicates (either applicative or depictive constructions depending on whether or not they communicate a change of state.).

See this the ungodly expensive book: https://amzn.to/3a3KvyY

Applicative Constructions by David A. Peterson
From the publisher:
This book presents the first systematic typological analysis of applicatives across African, American Indian, and East Asian languages. It is also the first to address their functions in discourse, the derivation of their semantic and syntactic properties, and how and why they have changed over time.
And this other ungodly expensive book: https://amzn.to/3b3pG8i

Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification: The Typology of Depictives by Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Eva F. Schultze-Berndt
This is the first book to approach depictive secondary predication - a hot topic in syntax and semantics research - from a crosslinguistic perspective. It maps out all the relevant phenomena and brings together critical surveys and new contributions on their morphosyntactic and semantic properties.
1 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1074
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » April 11th, 2020, 11:03 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
April 11th, 2020, 4:58 pm
BTW, 1 Co 15:52 ἐν ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι· σαλπίσει γὰρ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐγερθήσονται ἄφθαρτοι καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα.
ἐγερθήσονται

1 Co 15:52 alt. reading: ἀναστήσονται A D F G P,
Origen, Didymus the Blind, Chrysostom, Ephrem the Syrian, Theodoret of Cyrus, John of Damascus.
2 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

nathaniel j. erickson
Posts: 49
Joined: May 16th, 2016, 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post by nathaniel j. erickson » April 12th, 2020, 8:53 am

Barry wrote: Acts 26:5 I would classify as an appositive with the understood subject of the verb
I would certainly consider apposition a strong possibility, and most likely the right understanding, here. I have been trying to parse out the difference between the two in instances like this. Your note that these "secondary predicates" occur with intransitives is a helpful.

What would you think about 1 Pet 2.5: καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς? I would want to call this a secondary predicate/predicate complement since the οἶκος πνευματικός is part of the action/the result of οἰκοδομεῖσθε.

Looking more closely at the examples in Smyth it occured to me that he classes what NT grammarians usually call "double accusative" constructions under this usage: εἵλεσθε ἐκεῖνον πρεσβευτήν. That is helpful and gives a little more handle on the nominative usage, since "double accusatives" are quite familiar, while i have much less experience with the nominative version of secondary predicates.
MAubrey wrote: In linguistics, we call these secondary predicates (either applicative or depictive constructions depending on whether or not they communicate a change of state.).
Thanks for this label for the construction. Saddly, the Wikipedia page on secondary predicates is pretty unhelpful. I guess I'll have to dig deeper to get some more description.
0 x
Nathaniel J. Erickson
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1823
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » April 12th, 2020, 2:37 pm

nathaniel j. erickson wrote:
April 12th, 2020, 8:53 am
Barry wrote: Acts 26:5 I would classify as an appositive with the understood subject of the verb
I would certainly consider apposition a strong possibility, and most likely the right understanding, here. I have been trying to parse out the difference between the two in instances like this. Your note that these "secondary predicates" occur with intransitives is a helpful.

What would you think about 1 Pet 2.5: καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς? I would want to call this a secondary predicate/predicate complement since the οἶκος πνευματικός is part of the action/the result of οἰκοδομεῖσθε.

Looking more closely at the examples in Smyth it occured to me that he classes what NT grammarians usually call "double accusative" constructions under this usage: εἵλεσθε ἐκεῖνον πρεσβευτήν. That is helpful and gives a little more handle on the nominative usage, since "double accusatives" are quite familiar, while i have much less experience with the nominative version of secondary predicates.
Yes, I think this is right, and good connection from Smyth to conceptualize how it works.
οἶκος πνευματικὸς. Complement in a double nominative subject-complement construction. Some understand this nominative as appositional to the ὑμεῖς implied in οἰκοδομεῖσθε (Schreiner, 105), but this leaves the verb awkwardly without a complement. Applying insights from Culy (83–87), this is better read as a double nominative construction that derives from the double accusative object-complement construction “God is building you to be a spiritual house” (taking οἰκοδομέω as a verb of the category “making,” which category frequently takes double accusatives; Wallace, 186). When the accusative construction is passivized, the direct object “you” is “advanced” to become the nominative subject and the complement “spiritual house” is now changed to a nominative to agree with the subject (for a similar argument, see Achtemeier 1996, 155, even though on p. 149 he calls this phrase appositional).
Dubis, M. (2010). 1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text (p. 48). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

BTW, calling attention to Dubis's last phrase, one of the problems in these kinds of discussions is terminology used in different senses. Sometimes you analyze what's being said and two people using different terminology are saying the same thing, and sometimes people using the same or similar terminology are worlds apart.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1074
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » April 12th, 2020, 7:33 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
April 12th, 2020, 2:37 pm

οἶκος πνευματικὸς. Complement in a double nominative subject-complement construction. Some understand this nominative as appositional to the ὑμεῖς implied in οἰκοδομεῖσθε (Schreiner, 105), but this leaves the verb awkwardly without a complement. Applying insights from Culy (83–87), this is better read as a double nominative construction that derives from the double accusative object-complement construction “God is building you to be a spiritual house” (taking οἰκοδομέω as a verb of the category “making,” which category frequently takes double accusatives; Wallace, 186). When the accusative construction is passivized, the direct object “you” is “advanced” to become the nominative subject and the complement “spiritual house” is now changed to a nominative to agree with the subject (for a similar argument, see Achtemeier 1996, 155, even though on p. 149 he calls this phrase appositional).
Dubis, M. (2010). 1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text (p. 48). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

BTW, calling attention to Dubis's last phrase, one of the problems in these kinds of discussions is terminology used in different senses. Sometimes you analyze what's being said and two people using different terminology are saying the same thing, and sometimes people using the same or similar terminology are worlds apart.
NA27 1Cor. 15:52 ἐν ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι· σαλπίσει γὰρ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐγερθήσονται ἄφθαρτοι καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα.

Yes, the meta-language is in fact getting in the way. I spent some time trying to find a discussion of this without success. Guy Cooper apparently thinks nominative apposition is too mundane to waste time on. Looked up Lysias 13.10 in the Cooper's index. He cites it for other reasons and ignores the issue under discussion here. The language in 1Cor 15:52 seems to me transparent and non-problematic until you try and pin a label on it. I have two of the Baylor Handbooks by Martin Culy which I have used occasionally. I have noticed he uses terminology occasionally which I find almost incomprehensible, something like:

Dubis 2010 Complement in a double nominative subject-complement construction..

("complement" as a grammatical term isn't in my lexicon.)

If we don't want to call this two nominatives in apposition with an intransitive verb. We might talk about a change of state represented by ἄφθαρτοι. Paraphrasing: The dead are raised in a state of immortality.

Looked in BDF, Robertson, Moulton-Turner for a discussion of this in regard to 1Cor 15:52. Nothing.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1074
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » April 16th, 2020, 1:51 pm

While working on Melchizedek I stumbled across a sample of a predicate nominative with a non-equative verb in Hebrews 7:3.

Heb. 7:3 ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές.

“The use of μένει as an equative verb, ... with Melchizedek as the understood subject and ἱερεὺς as the predicate nominative, is unusual ...”

Hebrews, Dana M. Harris, B&H 2019, p. ix.
I was able to pull up this page in Google Books with the search string: Melchizedek "ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου" but who knows if it will work anywhere else.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1074
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Good discussion of predicate nominals?

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » April 16th, 2020, 2:42 pm

“The use of μένει as an equative verb, ... with Melchizedek as the understood subject and ἱερεὺς as the predicate nominative, is unusual ...”

Hebrews, Dana M. Harris, B&H 2019, p. ix.
Clarification: What's unusual isn't the syntax. Dana M. Harris observes that in the book of Hebrews μένω is usually associated with the Son.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”