Is there an example of the following construction in the GNT ?

[The Real John Milton]

A Subject - Predicate Nominative Construction where the indefinite substantive is the Subject ? I've not seen one.

It seems to me that if there is an indefinite substantive in such a construction, it is invariably the Predicate Nominative. For instance the following:

Μήτι ἐγὼ Ἰουδαῖός εἰμι

John 18:35

Ἰουδαῖός is indefinite, it is the PN.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Sure, since you didn't like the example I cited in the other thread, how about:

μὴ γένοιτο· γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης... (Rom 3:4).

δέ here is a discourse marker indicating a new clause in continuity with the thoughτ of the previous. γινέσθω, here the practical equivalent of ἔστω, is the understood verb from the previous clause. By definition πᾶς ἄνθρωπος is indefinite ("every man" not one specific person), and our predicate is ψεύστης.

Questions? It will be interesting to see how you wriggle out of it.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Or how about this, which came up in my daily GNT reading:


Θεωροῦντες δὲ τὴν τοῦ Πέτρου παρρησίαν καὶ Ἰωάννου καὶ καταλαβόμενοι ὅτι ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί εἰσιν καὶ ἰδιῶται (Acts 4:13)

Though ἄνθρωποι refers back to Peter and John, it is nevertheless a generalizing plural and so is not only anarthrous but indefinite. What kind of mean are they? Uneducated and (PN) laypersons.

 

[The Real John Milton]

This is slightly better than the other two examples which you tried to give in other threads, namely 1 Tim. 2:5 and John 1:6 (neither of which had a S-PN construction to begin with), but it's not much better:

ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί εἰσιν καὶ ἰδιῶται

Here the Subject is αὐτοί, not ἄνθρωποι , as in

[αὐτοί] ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί εἰσιν καὶ ἰδιῶται

In other words αὐτοί εἰσιν ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί καὶ ἰδιῶται

This is now your third false example, which just confirms my suspicion that you do not have a natural instinct & intuition for the Biblical Koine . As they say "three strikes and you're out."

 

[The Real John Milton]

Sure, since you didn't like the example I cited in the other thread, how about:

μὴ γένοιτο· γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης... (Rom 3:4).

δέ here is a discourse marker indicating a new clause in continuity with the thoughτ of the previous. γινέσθω, here the practical equivalent of ἔστω, is the understood verb from the previous clause. By definition πᾶς ἄνθρωπος is indefinite ("every man" not one specific person), and our predicate is ψεύστης.

Questions? It will be interesting to see how you wriggle out of it.

Gryllus, πᾶς here definitizes ἄνθρωπος .

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Gryllus, πᾶς here definitizes ἄνθρωπος .

Just plain wrong. It generalizes it. You can "definitize" with πᾶς, but that requires the article. Check any lexicon.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

This is slightly better than the other two examples which you tried to give in other threads, namely 1 Tim. 2:5 and John 1:6 (neither of which had a S-PN construction to begin with), but it's not much better:



Here the Subject is αὐτοί, not ἄνθρωποι , as in


In other words αὐτοί εἰσιν ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί καὶ ἰδιῶται

This is now your third false example, which just confirms my suspicion that you do not have a natural instinct & intuition for the Biblical Koine . As they say "three strikes and you're out."

αὐτοί? The word does not appear in the Greek text. You can't make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[The Real John Milton]

αὐτοί? The word does not appear in the Greek text. You can't make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously.

Gryllus, saying αὐτοί εἰσιν ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί καὶ ἰδιῶται is the same as saying εἰσιν ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί καὶ ἰδιῶται.

At Acts 4:13 we have αὐτός functioning as a personal pronoun. You cannot in above say εἰσιν ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί καὶ ἰδιῶται without assuming the pronoun αὐτοί. To put it in terms of chopping & parsing language, the form of εἰμί here is εἰσιν, that is, the 3rd person plural form, i.e. αὐτοί . You need to publicly recant the idea that at Acts 4:13 ἄνθρωποι is the Subject in a S-PN construction. I don't know if you really believe such a foolish thing at Acts 4:13 , or you are just saying so in order to mislead me for some sick reason , but it renders you a ψευδοδιδάσκαλος of the highest order in any case.

For instance Luke 14:1 came to my remembrance:

καὶ αὐτοὶ ἦσαν παρατηρούμενοι αὐτόν.

It's the same as if the apostle had written the following:

καὶ ἦσαν παρατηρούμενοι αὐτόν.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Just plain wrong. It generalizes it.

At Romans 3:4 it is being used to specify (as in every.....) This should have been clear to use since there is a parallelism in structure here with the clause incorporating ὁ θεὸς; let ὁ θεὸς (a specific individual) be true,... let each and every specific man / let every man be false...Following is a good translation:

Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

Not "Let [the] God be true, and a human being a liar,"... silly.
-----

You can "definitize" with πᾶς, but that requires the article. Check any lexicon.

The article serves as an intensifier with πᾶς . It is the context within which πᾶς is used which determines it's meaning. Here is some good advice:

The adjective πᾶς denotes the concept of completeness, whether it specifies a conglomeration of individual parts (each, every) or an undifferentiated whole. When it occurs in predicate structure [i.e. πάντες οἱ ἄνδρες], it specifies the items as considered together, and is often translated 'all' (extensive use).

Whether we say πάντες οἱ ἄνδρες or πάντες ἄνδρες makes no appreciable difference except that the former intensifies. In neither expression is ἄνδρες indefinite.....As Joe Biden is apt to say, " "C'mon man!"

 

[Roger Thornhill]

At Romans 3:4 it is being used to specify (as in every.....) This should have been clear to use since there is a parallelism in structure here with the clause incorporating ὁ θεὸς; let ὁ θεὸς (a specific individual) be true,... let each and every specific man / let every man be false...Following is a good translation:



Not "Let [the] God be true, and a human being a liar,"... silly.
-----


The article serves as an intensifier with πᾶς . It is the context within which πᾶς is used which determines it's meaning. Here is some good advice:




Whether we say πάντες οἱ ἄνδρες or πάντες ἄνδρες makes no appreciable difference except that the former intensifies. In neither expression is ἄνδρες indefinite.....As Joe Biden is apt to say, " "C'mon man!"

BDAG has the gloss, 1. pert. to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every, any (underline added)

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Just plain wrong. It generalizes it. You can "definitize" with πᾶς, but that requires the article. Check any lexicon.

How do you justify definiting θεός at J 1:1c? Seems to me if you can do it, JM can.

How do you make it definite?

 

[The Real John Milton]

BDAG has the gloss, 1. pert. to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every, any (underline added)

Yes. At Romans 3:4 we have the singular ἄνθρωπος so the other meaning "all" or "the whole" is a non-starter. However, Gryllus doesn't seem to realize that in the GNT and LXX whether we say πᾶς ἄνθρωπος or πᾶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος the meaning is the same, "every man" since a singular, specific person (and not some one person in general) is in view. πᾶς by itself specifies (and therefore definitizes) here, the article is used more as an intensifier. So look at Eccs.

3:13 καί γε πᾶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃς φάγεται καὶ πίεται καὶ ἴδῃ ἀγαθὸν ἐν παντὶ μόχθῳ αὐτοῦ δόμα θεοῦ ἐστιν

It has the same meaning as πᾶς ἄνθρωπος in Romans 3:4. Also if you will look at the S-PN at Romans 3:4 --

πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος [γινέσθω] ψεύστης

ψεύστης is indefinite, it means "a liar" and it is the PN. Now it would be just as nonsensical in Koine to take πᾶς ἄνθρωπος here also as indefinite as it would be in English -- "And let a man ( refers to a general, not specific, noun) be a liar" ?! Nonsense.

 

[The Real John Milton]

So some Greek versions of Judges 9:6 have the following, see here :

Καὶ συνήχθησαν πάντες ἄνδρες Σικίμων καὶ πᾶς οἶκος Βηθμααλών, καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν τὸν Ἀβειμέλεχ πρὸς τῇ βαλάνῳ τῇ εὑρετῇ τῆς στάσεως τῆς ἐν Σικίμοις.

and others as follows

9:6 καὶ συνήχθησαν πάντες οἱ ἄνδρες Σικιμων καὶ πᾶς ὁ οἶκος Μααλλων καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν τὸν Αβιμελεχ εἰς βασιλέα πρὸς τῇ βαλάνῳ τῆς στάσεως ἐν Σικιμοις

So one can certainly definitize with πᾶς without the article, contrary to what Gryllus said -- "You can "definitize" with πᾶς, but that requires the article. Check any lexicon."

 

[John Milton]

A Subject - Predicate Nominative Construction where the indefinite substantive is the Subject ? I've not seen one.

It seems to me that if there is an indefinite substantive in such a construction, it is invariably the Predicate Nominative. For instance the following:



John 18:35

Ἰουδαῖός is indefinite, it is the PN.

Isn't this just more or less another way of saying that the presence of the article is one way to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative?

 

[The Real John Milton]

Isn't this just more or less another way of saying that the presence of the article is one way to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative?

The presence of the article is only a good "way" to distinguish S from PN when the other substantive is indefinite, not just anarthrous. Otherwise all bets are off. But Gryllus's argument is even more defective. He postulates that the only reason why one substantive is anarthrous and the other articular in a S-PN construction is to distinguish it (the anarthrous substantive) from the Subject. This is absolutely false and upside down reasoning. Most of the time, when you find a S-PN construction the reason why one of the substantives is anarthrous is because it is indefinite, and an indefinite substantive is never the Subject. At other times the anarthrous substantive is qualitative, yet at other times it is definite. You can't just depend on the article alone to determine the Subject, but that's what Gryllus is doing at John 1:1c.

Anyhow, can you show me a S-PN construction where the indefinite substantive is the Subject ? I've not seen one.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Isn't this just more or less another way of saying that the presence of the article is one way to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative?

I see the statement as descriptive.

@Gryllus Maior sees it as more.

"It's a PN, and so the article is omitted to show that it's the predicate."
https://forums.carm.org/threads/examples-where-bdag-is-anti-trinitarian.1078/post-100123

 

[John Milton]

The presence of the article is only a good "way" to distinguish S from PN when the other substantive is indefinite, not just anarthrous.

This is yet another of your arbitrary and meaningless distinctions. A word can be "indefinite" but still have a single referent in the context or according to sense.

Otherwise all bets are off. But Gryllus's argument is even more defective. He postulates that the only reason why one substantive is anarthrous and the other articular in a S-PN construction is to distinguish it (the anarthrous substantive) from the Subject.

I don't believe this is exactly what he said, is it? I don't recall that "only reason" part. You and Roger play fast and loose with the things you attribute to others.

This is absolutely false and upside down reasoning. Most of the time, when you find a S-PN construction the reason why one of the substantives is anarthrous is because it is indefinite, and an indefinite substantive is never the Subject. At other times the anarthrous substantive is qualitative, yet at other times it is definite. You can't just depend on the article alone to determine the Subject, but that's what Gryllus is doing at John 1:1c.

Anyhow, can you show me a S-PN construction where the indefinite substantive is the Subject ? I've not seen one.

Sure.

ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς

 

[The Real John Milton]

I see the statement as descriptive.

@Gryllus Maior sees it as more.

"It's a PN, and so the article is omitted to show that it's the predicate."
https://forums.carm.org/threads/examples-where-bdag-is-anti-trinitarian.1078/post-100123

There is so much wrong with bold above. It's proved false immediately at John 1:4 --καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. If bold above was true, such constructions couldn't exist...

 

[The Real John Milton]

This is yet another of your arbitrary and meaningless distinctions. A word can be "indefinite" but still have a single referent in the context or according to sense.

Talk about some thing meaningless (bold above is it). "Anarthrous" and "indefinite" are not interchangeable. Time to realize that. Hardly a meaningless distinction.

I don't believe this is exactly what he said, is it? I don't recall that "only reason" part. You and Roger play fast and loose with the things you attribute to others.

So tell me what he said exactly.

Sure. ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς

ἀνήρ here is definite, not indefinite. It doesn't just refer to any man, but to the husband of the woman.

 

[John Milton]

I see the statement as descriptive.

@Gryllus Maior sees it as more.

"It's a PN, and so the article is omitted to show that it's the predicate."
https://forums.carm.org/threads/examples-where-bdag-is-anti-trinitarian.1078/post-100123

I would agree that the statement is descriptive, but I don't think you have a valid reason to object to it being a potential explanation for the omission of the article.