καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλις

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.

καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλις

For starters καλεῖται is not an equative, to be verb. At John 1:1c we have an equative verb:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Not when one of the substantives is definite and the other articular. The reason why the articular substantive "often" happens to be the subject in S-PN constructions is because most often the other substantive is indefinite, and an indefinite substantive is never the subject. So it is mostly indefiniteness which determines PN from S. You're using upside down reasoning.

In fact there are very few instances of S-PN constructions where one substantive is articular and the other definite in the GNT, and in such cases it is not at all clear from the construction alone which is the Subject and which the Predicate Nominative.
 
When a noun is used it can have three types of meanings, definite, indefinite and rarely qualitative. In the GNT the noun θεὸς is never qualitative (or "purely qualitative") so we can discount this use. Thus the two options at John 1:1c are indefinite or definite. Now, ὁ λόγος is clearly definite (because of the article). If θεὸς is also taken to be definite, we have a convertible proposition and either could then be the subject since each is completely interchangeable with the other. But that's not what apostle John intended.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
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 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.
 
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.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
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.

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.
 
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.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
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.

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?
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
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.

Wallace on the article
--------------------------


What it IS
a. At bottom, the article intrinsically has the ability to conceptualize. In otherwords, the article is able to turn just about any part of speech into a noun and, therefore, a concept. For example, “poor” expresses a quality, but the addition of an article turns it into an entity, “the poor.” It is this ability to conceptualize that seens to be the basic force of the article.

b. Does it ever do more than conceptualize? Of course. A distinction needs to be made between the essential force of the article and what it is most frequently used for. In terms of basic force, the article conceptualizes. In terms of predominant function, it is normally used to identify an object. That is to say, it is used predominantly to stress the identity of an individual or class or quality
 
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?
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.
 
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.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
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.

You are true to form by disagreeing and not providing what you think the primary use is.

Here is the Cambridge Greek Lexicon @Gryllus Maior just got on kindle after he saw mine. I'd like the hard copy but I have no room.

Meaning of the Definite Article
Basic Meaning
28.1 Greek has a definite article (ὁ, ἡ, τό the), but no indefinite article (Engl. singular 'a' or 'an'). The Greek equivalent of an indefinite article is the lack of an article: (1) πρῶτον μὲν ἠρεμεῖν δεῖ διδάσκειν τὸν ἵππον. (Xen. Eq. 7.8) First it is necessary to teach the horse to stay still. (2) οὐ γὰρ πώποτε ἐκτήσω ἵππον πλείονος ἄξιον ἢ τριῶν μνῶν. (Isae. 5.43) For you have never had a horse worth more than three minae. The article is ‘definite’ because it refers to someone/something that is identifiable: the article expresses that it is clear who/what is meant, and that it can be distinguished from other people/things.

And Smyth:

THE PARTICULAR ARTICLE
1119. The particular article denotes individual persons or things as distinguished from others of the same kind. Thus, μαίνεται ἅ̄νθρωποςthe man is mad (a definite person, distinguished from other men) P. Phae. 268c.
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Active member
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.
 
For one thing these are not "identical in every way," as the sense of ἐγένετο is quite different from ἦν.

At the syntactical and structural level, both constructions are identical: both have a conjunction , both have an equative verb, both have the preposition πρὸς followed by a substantive in the accusative and both have a substantive in the nominative.


Secondly, no, there is no subtle difference in the rules governing the PN. They are the same for all intransitive verbs.

Smyth whom you cited disagrees with you here. He says a predicate noun in a construction like the one he furnished at 1150 ( without an equative verb) does NOT have the article. But in a S-PN construction with an equative verb, the PN can indeed have the article (see John 1:4). So there is at least one difference between the rules governing the predicate noun in the two different types of constructions under consideration. Please address and interact instead of just repeating empty slogans like "No, you're just wrong."

The problem you have is in not recognizing that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN is NEVER definite in the writings of apostle John, and possibly never in the entire GNT. Additionally, if you take a sample of all S-PN constructions (pre-verbal or otherwise) in the writings of apostle John and of the GNT in general you will find that most PNs are indefinite, and indefinite nouns cannot be the subject. That is the real reason why most PNs are anarthrous , and not as you insist, in order to distinguish them from the subject.

P.S. Again, please interact with the arguments instead of just repeating that you are right and I'm wrong.
 
Top