Isaac Newton wrote:According to Wallace in GGBB, p. 41, there are two types of S-PN constructions.
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 ?
This is a bit of NT Greek "traditional grammar" found for example in Zerwick (171-175) and converted by Wallace into a RULE using some sort of math-like approach to the problem. Natural language is not
The syntactical analysis of the use of the article in NT Greek has a long tradition and much that tradition has been reevaluated in the last half century by linguists involved in bible translation. Quite recently Chapter 6
of Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation. SIL 2008.http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/50670/ ... lation.pdf
The article with predicate nominative is used when the information is hearer old
. It need not be discourse old
. If the currently active scenario includes the idea represented by the substantive/noun then the article will be use even if it has not been referenced previously in the discourse. Failing a currently active scenario, if the idea is part of a shared cognitive framework then it can be assumed to be cognitively assessable and thus hearer old
. That is the default pattern. On the other hand a hearer old
substantive can be left anarthrous as a form of salience marking.
None of this addresses your question. But I think Wallace's approach is likely to get you headed down the wrong road on this. Smyth §1152:
Even in the predicate the article is used with a noun referring to a definite object (an individual or a class) that is well known, previously mentioned or hinted at, or identical with the subject ...
Notice the or
. It doesn't have to be identical with the subject. Consider John 1:49:
John 1:49 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ· ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.
Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” ESV
RP: εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ♦ NA/UBS: βασιλεὺς εἶ
So why the article in English? The lack of the article βασιλεὺς marks it as salient
, since βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ is part of the shared cognitive framework thus always hearer old
without being discourse old
On the other hand, reading the Byz Textform:
Ἀπεκρίθη Ναθαναήλ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. Robinson-Pierpont 2005
Is this really a convertible proposition? Would ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ unambiguously
point to the same referent as Ῥαββί in this context? I don't think so.
FOOTNOTE: Iver Larsen (Denmark/East Africa SIL) has had some favorable things to say about Hoyle's treatment of the article in Scenarios and Discourse
C. Stirling Bartholomew