You and your "for starters." It doesn't have to "equative."
It certainly does. Smyth was not referring to a S-PN (Predicate Nominative) construction like the one in John 1:1c in 1150, which by definition requires an equative verb. He knows very well how to use the expression "predicate nominative" but in 1150 he used the term "predicate noun" instead. He was referring to constructions involving the intransitive usage of non copulative verbs with predicate
nouns here when he said "a predicate noun has no article." But you took this curt statement out of context and ran with it in order to make a bogus point to buttress your false claim at John 1:1c (which even Wallace condemns as Modalism). Think about it: if Smyth was not drawing a distinction between constructions involving equative verbs then his assertion that "a predicate noun has no article" is proved wrong as early as John 1:4 (καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, where the predicate noun certainly has the article).
Ref:
[*] 1150. A predicate noun has no article, and is thus distinguished from the subject: καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλις the acropolis is still called ‘city’ by the Athenians T. 2.15.
as καλεῖται
---
An intransitive usage such as καλεῖται works fine for the example. You do realize that what you call equative verbs are all intransitive and are normally followed by PN's, right? Any verb which can take a PN can pick up the anarthrous PN.
Yes, but the rules governing Subject - Predicate
Nominative constructions (with equative verbs) are slightly different Gryllus than rules which govern Subject - Predicate
Noun constructions involving
intransitive , non-equative verbs. In the latter constructions , according to Smyth , the predicate noun has no article. In other words you will not find in such constructions a predicate noun with an article. This is NOT the case in the former type of construction, as already shown. You seem to have misunderstood Smyth here.
On another note, you allow as relevant a construction which substitutes an equative verb for an intransitive verb at John 1:1c to make a bogus case but when I use an example with the exact same type of syntax at John 1:1b to make a real argument, you say the example is irrelevant because it does not use the same equative verb. I'm referring of course to the following types of examples from the LXX:
Isaiah 38:4
καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ησαιαν
compare with
καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν
Identical in every way .
So once again you're straining out a gryllus but swallowing a camel.