sub-set propositions
Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:04 am
According to Wallace in GGBB, p. 41, there are two types of S-PN constructions.
(a) The subset proposition. >> This is where the S (subject) is a subset of the PN (predicate nominative).
(b) The convertible proposition. >> This construction indicates an identical exchange. This is the less frequent semantic relationship between S and PN. In this construction, both nouns have an identical referent. The mathematical formulas of A=B, B=A are applicable in such instances. There is complete interchange between the two nouns.
In this thread I'm mainly concerned about subset propositions , i.e. (a) above. As noted, this is a situatinon where the S is a subset of the PN. Thus "the word of the cross is foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:18) is not the same as "foolishness is the word of the cross," since there are other kinds of foolishness. "God is love" is not the same as "love is God," etc...
Question: Can we conclude that by definition, in a subset proposition the S and PN cannot both be definite nouns ? That is, the PN will either be qualitative, or indefinite but not definite ?
The answer seems fairly obvious to me, -- "yes" on both counts, -- but I would like the readers input.
Thanks for your time...
(a) The subset proposition. >> This is where the S (subject) is a subset of the PN (predicate nominative).
(b) The convertible proposition. >> This construction indicates an identical exchange. This is the less frequent semantic relationship between S and PN. In this construction, both nouns have an identical referent. The mathematical formulas of A=B, B=A are applicable in such instances. There is complete interchange between the two nouns.
In this thread I'm mainly concerned about subset propositions , i.e. (a) above. As noted, this is a situatinon where the S is a subset of the PN. Thus "the word of the cross is foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:18) is not the same as "foolishness is the word of the cross," since there are other kinds of foolishness. "God is love" is not the same as "love is God," etc...
Question: Can we conclude that by definition, in a subset proposition the S and PN cannot both be definite nouns ? That is, the PN will either be qualitative, or indefinite but not definite ?
The answer seems fairly obvious to me, -- "yes" on both counts, -- but I would like the readers input.
Thanks for your time...