καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλις
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Someone has misunderstand another person's remark and started a junk thread about it. Yay.Smyth, see here, has been abused by some people at Carm. to make a (false) case for a (non-existence) rule of grammar concerning a Subject - Predicate Construction with an equative verb, like the one at John 1:1c.
For starters καλεῖται is not an equative, to be verb. At John 1:1c we have an equative verb:
Someone has misunderstand another person's remark and started a junk thread about it. Yay.
Not again.Would you care to explain the apparent misunderstanding ?
Not again.
Yes, you can. You can show that predicate nominatives can often be distinguished from the subject of the sentence by the absence of the article.You never did.
One cannot use that Smyth example from OP to say anything useful about the grammar at John 1:1c, let alone to declare that the reason the article is missing from θεὸς in John 1:1c is to distinguish it from the Subject.
Yes, you can. You can show that predicate nominatives can often be distinguished from the subject of the sentence by the absence of the article.
You and your "for starters." It doesn't have to "equative." 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.Smyth, see here, has been abused by some people at Carm. to make a (false) case for a (non-existence) rule of grammar concerning a Subject - Predicate Construction with an equative verb, like the one at John 1:1c.
For starters καλεῖται is not an equative, to be verb. At John 1:1c we have an equative verb:
You are so amusing at times. You realize that an articular noun is by definition definite? The issue is whether the anarthrous PN is also considered definite, and that's a function of context.Not when one of the substantives is definite and the other articular.
Note: This is not RJM.You are so amusing at times. You realize that an articular noun is by definition definite? The issue is whether the anarthrous PN is also considered definite, and that's a function of context.
Note: This is not RJM.
Context is the best answer that I can give for some usages of articular or anarthrous PNs, but I do wonder if these contextual factors can be verbalized in a more helpful manner. In other words, I wonder if the passages where the context seems to point to one specific option as the correct answer share enough common features to allow the principles at play in them to be identified and articulated.
Your idea of anaphora just simply doesn't work. You disagree, and that's fine. But I'm not going to flesh it out again here.That was my exact thought when I realized that what some people called "context" in exegetical discussions was actually grammatical, the anaphoric article.
It makes sense because the primary purpose of the article is to identify.
Textual anaphora is more straightforward than contextual.
Your idea of anaphora just simply doesn't work. You disagree, and that's fine. But I'm not going to flesh it out again here.
I don't think it is helpful to say that the primary function of the article is identification. Even if is true, doesn't it imply that there are instances where the article does something else? And won't most people fall into the trap of assuming that the article is identifying something when it could be serving another purpose? Then you often end up with the pigeonholed explanations that you and RJM often espouse.
Your idea of anaphora just simply doesn't work. You disagree, and that's fine. But I'm not going to flesh it out again here.
I don't think it is helpful to say that the primary function of the article is identification. Even if is true, doesn't it imply that there are instances where the article does something else? And won't most people fall into the trap of assuming that the article is identifying something when it could be serving another purpose? Then you often end up with the pigeonholed explanations that you and RJM often espouse.
I can recognize the value of someone's work, even if it doesn't explain every case perfectly or agree with my own assessment. I cited Wallace because he gives a general outline of the use of the article that is easy to understand and apply and that provides a high degree of explanatory power. In this particular case, I thought it might help you. It does provide an adequate explanation for John 1:1 and 1:4.If you don't think the primary use of the article is identification, then why is Wallace your go-to for the article on John 1:1?
You and your "for starters." It doesn't have to "equative."
[*] 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.
καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ησαιαν
καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν
I can recognize the value of someone's work, even if it doesn't explain every case perfectly or agree with my own assessment. I cited Wallace because he gives a general outline of the use of the article that is easy to understand and apply and that provides a high degree of explanatory power. In this particular case, I thought it might help you. It does provide an adequate explanation for John 1:1 and 1:4.
For one thing these are not "identical in every way," as the sense of ἐγένετο is quite different from ἦν. Secondly, no, there is no subtle difference in the rules governing the PN. They are the same for all intransitive verbs.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:
---
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
compare with
Identical in every way .
So once again you're straining out a gryllus but swallowing a camel.
For one thing these are not "identical in every way," as the sense of ἐγένετο is quite different from ἦν.
Secondly, no, there is no subtle difference in the rules governing the PN. They are the same for all intransitive verbs.