Nouns do not need articles to become substantives; adjectives and participles do.
In 343c, ἀγαθὸν, συμφέρον, and βλάβη are predicate nouns. συμφέρον is understood as nominalized, as it has been throughout the preceding discussion, and It’s treated as a noun like the other two predicate nouns ἀγαθὸν and βλάβη.
In 339d, τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον is not predicative: it’s the object of ποιεῖν, and thus needs the article to be used as a noun. The whole infinitive phrase τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον ποιεῖν is predicative, and perhaps that’s another reason why it isn’t an articular infinitive.
Actually, in 343c, ἀγαθὸν is also an adjective that has been nominalized, and has no article. It’s clear that ἀγαθὸν is used as a noun because it’s modified by an adjective, ἀλλότριον.
ἡ μὲν δικαιοσύνη καὶ τὸ δίκαιον ἀλλότριον ἀγαθὸν τῷ ὄντι, τοῦ κρείττονός τε καὶ ἄρχοντος συμφέρον, οἰκεία δὲ τοῦ πειθομένου τε καὶ ὑπηρετοῦντος βλάβη – roughly, “justice and the just are really someone else’s good, what is advantageous to the stronger party and the ruler, and their own detriment for those who must obey and are subordinate.”
You might be right, yet I fail to see how it follows from Smyth 1150, which seems to apply only where there is a need to distinguish between the subject and the predicate because they are in the same case. It does not imply that any object of a transitive verb should have an article, nor that any adjective that has been nominalized should have it when used as such an object.
“The whole infinitive phrase τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον ποιεῖν is predicative”-
On my proposed second reading, this phrase is the subject, not a predicate; the predicate is δίκαιόν (whether taken as nominalized or not).
Yes, you’re right: τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον ποιεῖν is the subject, not the predicate. δικαιον εστι is the predicate, and δικαιον is a predicative adjective.
Smyth 1150, which seems to apply only where there is a need to distinguish between the subject and the predicate because they are in the same case. It does not imply that any object of a transitive verb should have an article, nor that any adjective that has been nominalized should have it when used as such an object.
See Smyth sec. 910. “Predicate noun” doesn’t mean any noun that occurs in the predicate. It’s a noun that is the predicate of the subject, i.e., a noun that the clause asserts is identical to or is an attribute of the subject, not the object of a transitive verb. A noun linked to the subject by the copula verb “is” εστι, is a predicate noun.
910-911. Predicate Nouns.—Nouns (substantival or adjectival) are often used as complements to the predicate. Thus,
a. A predicate substantive is a substantive forming part of the predicate and asserting something of its substantive: Περικλῆς ᾑρέθη στρατηγός Pericles was elected general, ““εἵλεσθε ἐκεῖνον πρεσβευτήν” you elected him envoy” L. 13.10.b. A predicate adjective is an adjective forming part of the predicate and asserting something of its substantive: ὁ ἀνὴρ δίκαιός ἐστι the man is just, ἐνόμισαν Περικλέα_ εὐτυχῆ they thought Pericles fortunate.
- A predicate substantive or adjective may often be distinguished from an attributive (912) in that the former implies some form of εἶναι be. Thus, πρεσβευτήν and εὐτυχῆ in 910. After verbs signifying to name or call, εἶναι is sometimes expressed (1615).
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+910&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007
But I think we’ve exhausted this topic.
I’ve learned a lot from you, yet I have to admit that the example found by Joel has re-opened the question for me, since it shows that an adjective or a participle can be nominalized even without having an article. You claim that this can possibly happen only when it is used as a predicate, not an object. Yet I see no support for this claim in Smyth’s passages that you cited. These passages say absolutely nothing about the articles of nouns (nor of nominalized adjectives or participles, for that matter) used as objects.
τὸ συμφέρον μὲν οὖν, ὦ Θρασύμαχε, καὶ σὺ ἀπεκρίνω δίκαιον εἶναι … (339 a6-7)
Here δίκαιον is clearly the predicate. The discussion is about finding an X that would be a truth-maker for the proposition “X is δίκαιον”.
(this was meant as a response to Joel, whose response had posted but now disappeared)
I thought better about continuing the thread
Go figure it out for yourself.
And don’t expect me to waste my time responding the next time you post a question.
You claim that this can possibly happen only when it is used as a predicate, not an object. Yet I see no support for this claim in Smyth’s passages that you cited. These passages say absolutely nothing about the articles of nouns (nor of nominalized adjectives or participles, for that matter) used as objects.
No, I pointed to Smyth sec. 1150, which explains why the predicate nouns in 343c – the nominalized adjective ἀγαθὸν, the nominalized participle συμφέρον, and the noun βλάβη – have no article. But in 339d, the nominalized particple τὸ . . . συμφέρον, used as an abstract noun, requires the article. Without the article, συμφέρον is just a free-floating participle with no antecedent – a syntactic impossibility.
If you don’t see that, you’re not ready for Plato.
But I’m not going to waste my time digging through Smyth for confirmation, only to have you suck me into another endless interrogation.
If you don’t like my explanation, you’re welcome to stew in your own obtuse ignorance.
Тугодум indeed.
Hylander, I wasn’t arguing with – nor demanding anything from – you. Now I see that what you meant was that the article is needed by default and this is why only the exception from that general rule needs to stipulated, as is done in the Smyth passage that you provided. Your anger is irrational.
My anger is irrational? After I gave you the answer to your initial post, you led me through a whole day of questioning – which I foolishly responded to in an effort to set your misconceptions straight – only in the end to reject my explanation with a suggestion that I didn’t know what I was talking about.
Yes, I was angry, and I’m still seething, even more so after your “irrational” remark.
I never doubted your expertise. What words of mine made you think otherwise? For me, learning implies understanding how to apply to particular cases what the grammar books state as general principles. E.g., Smyth 2052 a:
“Participles having an indefinite force may, especially in the plural number, be used without the article. Thus, ““κατασκεψομένους ἔπεμπε” he sent men to reconnoitre” X. C. 3.1.2, ““ἀδικοῦντα πειρα_σόμεθα . . . ἀμύ_νασθαι” we shall endeavour to avenge ourselves on any one who injures us” X. A. 2.3.23.”
I’m trying to understand why this stipulation does not apply to my case. I trust your expert opinion that it doesn’t. But the question “why” remains open for me.
Smyth 2052 a:-- those are participles have a clear syntactic function in the sentences.
In 339d, τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον, with the genitive τοῦ κρείττονος but without τὸ would simply be dangling, unattached to any word in the sentence, and would have no syntactic function. (It could be a neuter participle used adverbially, but not with the genitive τοῦ κρείττονος attached.) τὸ is needed to make the syntactic function clear. That’s the short answer.
Smyth 1153 describes how the article can be used to nominalize a participle.
You need read the Greek in 339d making sure you understand the underlying syntactic structure, take note for future reference of the usage of the participle with the article as a noun, and move on without trying to understand how every other participle in Greek literature, or even just Plato, is used and without trying to find a citation in a grammar book for every usage. You will build up your knowledge of Greek by reading Greek and learning specific usages as you encounter them, not by reading Smyth.
So my mistake, if I’m getting you right, was that I thought that the syntactic function of συμφέρον here is unequivocally clear from the context. Thanks.
Regarding your last paragraph (which I have just noticed), and in particular “You will build up your knowledge of Greek by reading Greek and learning specific usages as you encounter them, not by reading Smyth”:
My problem in this case was due to the fact that I’ve encountered participles used as objects without articles countless number of times in Greek texts. So some “knowledge” (or, rather, assumption) on this point has been “build up” already.
I thought that the syntactic function of συμφέρον here is unequivocally clear from the context.
I think your original question, and in particular your interpretation (b) was based on not seeing that the article must necessarily belong to συμφέρον, not ποιεῖν (which would be an articular infinitive) in this sentence in order to nominalize the participle συμφέρον and form a noun phrase τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον. Otherwise τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον would be dangling without a referent and wouldn’t fit syntactically into the sentence.
My thinking had been that συμφέρον is sufficiently “substantivized” here by the immediately preceding context of the dialogue, so as to not necessarily need an explicit nominalizaton by the article.
In other words, given the context, I failed to see how any other syntactical function for the συμφέρον here might have possibly come to mind.
I wouldn’t dwell on it. Just note the usage and move on.