Hey grammarians, maybe because it’s still early morning here and I’ve only had one espresso so far, but I’m puzzled by this statement in the Cambridge Grammar:
30.28 Note 2: Attributive genetives are frequently used as predicative complement. -->26.8
But in 26.8 it says “a linking verb inks a subject to a nominal constituent, the so-called predicative complement, which ideitifies the subject or assigns a property to it.” So for example “the dog is blue” would be [subject] [linking verb] [predicative complement] where the predicative complement is the adjective. But since “the dog” is the subject, in Greek it’s in the nominative case. How can the predicative complement then be in the genitive case which is what 30.28 Note 2 seems to suggest?
What am I missing here? Or would another extra shot of espresso help?
…or is a construction like “The dog is Cyrus’s” what Note 2 is referring to? i.e. το κυων ἐστιν το Κυρου?
Just my two cents: I wouldn’t pay too much attention to this kind of grammatical mumbo-jumbo. When you try to apply to Latin and Greek grammatical concepts that were created in and for modern languages, you’re usually getting in big troubles. This is the kind of thing that would make no sense for an ancient Greek or Roman. If you grab two different grammars of let’s say English, you’re going to find different treatments and concepts (terms) applied to the same phenomenon. Too much grammar in Latin or Greek is something like going to the Louvre, sitting in front of the Monalisa and, instead contemplating its beauty, opening a critical and technical book about the painting and starting reading it.
Remember Quintilian’s words: “Quare mihi non inuenuste dici uidetur aliud esse Latine, aliud grammatice loqui”.
Yes, ὁ κύων ἐστὶ τοῦ Κύρου is an example of what Note 2 describes – a predicative genitive. CGCG represents an accurate and reliable description of ancient Greek informed by modern linguistics.