Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular

J

John Milton

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let me see if I can find it in Google books.
 
J

John Milton

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
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.
Click to expand...
From page 44. You have the book, so you should be able to find it for yourself.
1609442326358.png
1609442366654.png
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The Real John Milton said:
If θεος in John 1:1c is definite isn't it the functional equivalent of a proper name ? So (2) will apply in that case and θεος should then be the Subject since word order then apparently decides the subject.
Click to expand...

They won't agree ο θεός is a proper name because that would invalidate Sharp's rule to prove Jesus is God.
 
J

John Milton

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
They won't agree ο θεός is a proper name because that would invalidate Sharp's rule to prove Jesus is God.
Click to expand...
Wallace's comments deal with articular nouns with proper names or two articular nouns. For the third time, you need to read what Wallace wrote in parentheses in 2 in the screenshot above.

ὁ θεός isn't a proper name, but this has nothing to do with upholding Sharp's rule.
 
J

John Milton

Well-known member
John Milton said:
Wallace's comments deal with articular nouns with proper names or two articular nouns. For the third time, you need to read what Wallace wrote in parentheses in 2 in the screenshot above.

ὁ θεός isn't a proper name, but this has nothing to do with upholding Sharp's rule.
Click to expand...
I might've actually misunderstood this one. My fault.
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
John Milton said:
Read the parentheses in 2 again.
Click to expand...

I see it. Very general. Is there anywhere that he says in these cases the subject is first?

The linguistic rule from Buth works regardless of article or word order. And he gives a grammatical reason why based on clauses coordinated with και.
 
J

John Milton

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
I see it. Very general. Is there anywhere that he says in these cases the subject is first?

The linguistic rule from Buth works regardless of article or word order. And he gives a grammatical reason why based on clauses coordinated with και.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't blame anyone for a misunderstanding here. Having reread Wallace's remarks now, I do find them somewhat ambiguous on their own. The heading "articular nouns and proper names seem to have equal priority" might be understood to relate to each other (an articular noun with a proper name, with or without the article) or distinct from each other (articular nouns have equal priority with other articular nouns or proper names have equal priority with other proper names).

However, when you look at the examples he gives, it seems clear that he includes pairs of articular nouns that aren't proper names.

Mt. 6:22 Ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός. ἐὰν οὖν ᾖ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ἁπλοῦς, ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου φωτεινὸν ἔσται·
(But, I don't think this example demonstrates his point well.)

I John 2:7 Ἀγαπητοί, οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν ἀλλ’ ἐντολὴν παλαιὰν ἣν εἴχετε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς· ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε.
 
J

John Milton

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
I see it. Very general. Is there anywhere that he says in these cases the subject is first?

The linguistic rule from Buth works regardless of article or word order. And he gives a grammatical reason why based on clauses coordinated with και.
Click to expand...
I don't have access to Buth's work. I can't interact with it.
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
J

John Milton

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
That is what you should have said before, instead of saying I miss used it.


Post in thread 'Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/pre...-and-complement-are-articular.1378/post-93211

In fact, I quote enough to make the point self evident. Actually I quote Heckert who I have in hardcopy who quoted him.
Click to expand...
I stand by what I've said. I'm certain you've misunderstand him. I'm simply telling you that I can't explain how you are misapplying his remarks, because I don't have access to your source. The quote from Heckert says that too many many people use or understand καί arbitrarily, but little else, unless I've missed something. Ironically, this is exactly what I think you are doing.
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
John Milton said:
I stand by what I've said. I'm certain you've misunderstand him. I'm simply telling you that I can't explain how you are misapplying his remarks, because I don't have access to your source. The quote from Heckert says that too many many people use or understand καί arbitrarily, but little else, unless I've missed something. Ironically, this is exactly what I think you are doing.
Click to expand...

Yes Heckert says people ignore και, and quoted Buth and Levinsohn to show how. Ironically Wallace ignores και here too. And so far everyone I have read so far on John 1:1.

Discourse grammarians see that και implies continuity, and Buth sees continuity of subject.

I also quoted Levinsohn's 5 rules to determine the subject in this forum.


Thread 'The linguistic subject of John 20:28'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the-linguistic-subject-of-john-20-28.1330/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top