I don't see that @The Real John Milton bears the burden of proof for your assertion.
What's impossible is what you have not done, which is to prove your own word order, which is apparently necessary for your own interpretation.
You are ignoring syntax and attempting a mere word study. The anarthrous predicate in a predicate nominative construction is significant. It's the difference between a convertible proposition and a subset proposition.
The lack or presence of the article has nothing to do with whether...
I was responding to what you said here:
There are diminutives that are clearly personal. There are neuter words that are referred to ad sensum with gendered pronouns. The only correct answer to the question is that neuter nouns can be personal.
My reply stands:
Thats exactly what Smyth says...
Wallace is using all the same texts you are and concludes that Greek Grammar gives no evidence that the holy spirit is an distinct person of God.
If you are making a contextual argument then that is different, but it seems like you are trying to make a grammatical one.
You might consider that at 2 Co 1:3-4 (ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως) it is the Father who is the God of all comfort. It's His spirit and He is what makes it personal.
Since He is the God of ALL comfort that eliminates any other from being the comforter.
Yes it is, with masculine parts of speech in construction according to sense for wicked spirits that are considered personal. That's the sort of grammar that is lacking for the holy spirit according to Daniel Wallace.