Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular

[Roger Thornhill]

The lack of the article is one criteria that is used for identifying a predicate nominative. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

White gives no other grammatical reason. What's another?

 

[John Milton]

Why would a reference to my advanced age compared to you be racist?

Even if you don't know the answer to this, why would you still use the phrase if you understood why it was condescending?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Even if you don't know the answer to this, why would you still use the phrase if you understood why it was condescending?

My apologies if it offended you. I felt it was less condescending than you have been and also was intended to convey a sense of family/fondness based on the amount of time you spend talking to me.

 

[John Milton]

Simple question : Does the following sentence have a to-be equative verb (εἰμί , γίνομαι or even ὑπάρχω)

Ref. καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλις

Here is a quick refresher to jog your memory into what a S (Subject) -PN (Predicate Nominative) construction like the one we have at John 1:1c entails:

The verbs that take PNs aren't limited to the ones you have listed here. I don't know if this answers your question or not. Evem if it doesn't, that's probably all I will say about it.

 

[John Milton]

My apologies if it offended you. I felt it was less condescending than you have been and also was intended to convey a sense of family/fondness based on the amount of time you spend talking to me.

Fair enough. I apologize for the hostile edge to my comments as well. If you would just take my major point to heart I would be satisfied: you need to be more careful about your use of sources. Many times they have not made the claims or arguments that you attribute to them.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The verbs that take PNs aren't limited to the ones you have listed here. I don't know if this answers your question or not. Evem if it doesn't, that's probably all I will say about it.

It doesn't answer my question, and your refusal to be more forthcoming is not helpful. The point is that that sentence does not have an equative verb, so it is not parallel to John 1:1c.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Fair enough. I apologize for the hostile edge to my comments as well. If you would just take my major point to heart I would be satisfied: you need to be more careful about your use of sources. Many times they have not made the claims or arguments that you attribute to them.

Apology accepted. As for my use of sources, I am very specific as to how I interpret them.

To be told I am wrong simply because I don't understand them without demonstrating how is not helpful.

It makes me think it is you who don't understand.

 

[John Milton]

White gives no other grammatical reason. What's another?

It is my belief that Wallace is about the best general advice for this subject. I don't think it is helpful for most people to be more descriptive/restrictive than this. Note: The following remarks are my understanding of Wallace and need to be double checked for accuracy:
1) The subject is a pronoun or embedded in the verb.
2) is a proper name.
3) is articular.

The pronoun (name? I can't remember if it is included or not) is given highest priority. Articular nouns are of equal weight, with the one coming first possibly being more likely to be the subject.

 

[John Milton]

It doesn't answer my question, and your refusal to be more forthcoming is not helpful. The point is that that sentence does not have an equative verb, so it is not parallel to John 1:1c.

And mine was that it doesn't matter at all because it isn't relevant to Smyth's remarks.

 

[The Real John Milton]

And mine was that it doesn't matter at all because it isn't relevant to Smyth's remarks.

Has it occurred to you that Smyth was not talking about S-PN (Predicate Nominative) constructions with an equative verb when he made that assertion ?

Also note that he knows how to use the term predicate nominative, but he used the term predicate noun here.

 

[John Milton]

Apology accepted. As for my use of sources, I am very specific as to how I interpret them.

To be told I am wrong simply because I don't understand them without demonstrating how is not helpful.

It makes me think it is you who don't understand.

I think I have explained, in most cases at least, why you are wrong, but sometimes a person isn't as clear as he or she intends to be. I can also understand why you may feel you are right if you don't understand. Nevertheless, it is possible for me to be correct and for you not understand why. My advice would be to give the sources another careful perusal even if you choose to right me off.

 

[John Milton]

Has it occurred to you that Smyth was not talking about S-PN (Predicate Nominative) constructions with an equative verb when he made that assertion ?

Also note that he knows how to use the term predicate nominative, but he used the term predicate noun here.

I truly feel sorry for you RJM.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

It is my belief that Wallace is about the best general advice for this subject. I don't think it is helpful for most people to be more descriptive/restrictive than this. Note: The following remarks are my understanding of Wallace and need to be double checked for accuracy:
1) The subject is a pronoun or embedded in the verb.
2) is a proper name.
3) is articular.

The pronoun (name? I can't remember if it is included or not) is given highest priority. Articular nouns are of equal weight, with the one coming first possibly being more likely to be the subject.

I just checked Wallace and your three ways to identify the subject in a predicate nominative are the only three ways he gives.

So, if both terms are articular and don't fit reasons 1 or 2, like my example of John 1:4, there must be another way to identify the subject.


I provided this from Discourse analysis. And you say I am wrong in my interpretation of them?

I don't think so.

Wallace has a gap here.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I think I have explained, in most cases at least, why you are wrong, but sometimes a person isn't as clear as he or she intends to be. I can also understand why you may feel you are right if you don't understand. Nevertheless, it is possible for me to be correct and for you not understand why. My advice would be to give the sources another careful perusal even if you choose to right me off.

You have not explained, but in my last post on Wallace you now have a chance to demonstrate that.

 

[John Milton]

I just checked Wallace and your three ways to identify the subject in a predicate nominative are the only three ways he gives.

So, if both terms are articular and don't fit reasons 1 or 2, like my example of John 1:4, there must be another way to identify the subject.


I provided this from Discourse analysis. And you say I am wrong in my interpretation of them?

I don't think so.

Wallace has a gap here.

Well, I'm just glad I at least passed the test and represented him correctly!

The things I wrote under the three main points are the clarifications he gives (or at least I think they are) for applying the three. In John 1:4 yhere are two articular nouns with a copula, so the first is most likely to be the subject. It appears to me that his remarks fit.

 

[John Milton]

You have not explained, but in my last post on Wallace you now have a chance to demonstrate that.

Np

 

[The Real John Milton]

Well, I'm just glad I at least passed the test and represented him correctly!

The things I wrote under the three main points are the clarifications he gives (or at least I think they are) for applying the three. In John 1:4 yhere are two articular nouns with a copula, so the first is most likely to be the subject. It appears to me that his remarks fit.

Where does Wallace say that if one substantive is definite (but anarthrous) and the other articular that the one with the article is the Subject. Are you inferring that from his silence ? Since both are definite, doesn't it follow that context determines the subject in such cases ?

 

[John Milton]

Where does Wallace say that if one substantive is definite (but anarthrous) and the other articular that the one with the article is the Subject. Are you inferring that from his silence ? Since both are definite, doesn't it follow that context determines the subject in such cases ?

I don't recall Wallace being that specific.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I don't recall Wallace being that specific.

Can you please be more forthcoming ?

Question : If one substantive is definite (but anarthrous) and the other articular what determines the Subject in your view ?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Well, I'm just glad I at least passed the test and represented him correctly!

The things I wrote under the three main points are the clarifications he gives (or at least I think they are) for applying the three. In John 1:4 yhere are two articular nouns with a copula, so the first is most likely to be the subject. It appears to me that his remarks fit.

I did not see him include word order. In fact he prefaced that section with this:

'Translation of subject-predicate nominative clauses. English translation requires that the S be translated first.7 Such is not the case in Greek. In John 1:1, for example, θεος ην ο λόγος should be translated “the Word was God” rather than “God was the Word.” But since Greek word order is far more flexible than English, this creates a problem: How do we distinguish S from PN if word order is not a clear guide? The following section will offer a solution.'

His three reasons don't include word order.