Act 7:59 (NP constituents- attributive or predicative) (to Iver)
moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Fri Mar 23 21:36:37 EST 2001
but constituents of an NP are all "attributive", and I call them
I agree. Some constituents of an NP are in the "predicate position"
and some are in the "attributive position". But they are all modifiers
of the head noun of the NP. Whether a modifier is placed in the "predicate
position" or in the "attributive position" depends on the nature of the
When I learned English, I were taught that "all" must be placed
before the article, while
"whole" must be placed after the article like ordinary modifiers.
I simply memorized the rule without any question. We can do the same
with respect to the Greek quantifiers like PAS and the demonstrative
modifiers, without introducing the concept of "predicate position" and
"attributive position". We'd better say that some modifiers are placed
inside the article-noun configuration and some are ouside of the
article-noun configuration. Did anybody find out why such a rule exists?
I am not aware of it. But I think that the concept "predicate position"
and "attributive position" does not help explain the rule.
We agreed with it.
I realise that it is sometimes a question of analysis whether
something is actually a constituent of the NP or not.
A participial clause may also function as a constituent in an NP in this
Often it is simply one participle alone. In most cases the participle
(participial clause) follows the NP head (default order), but if there is
on the idea expressed by the participle then it precedes the head, e.g.
Luke 22:45 hEUREN KOIMWMENOUS AUTOUS 'he found them SLEEPING!'
It is on this background that I prefer to analyse Acts 7:59 as an NP with
noun followed by a participial clause which again consists of two
coordinated participles one of which has a complement.
I would like to ask why you consider KOIMWMENOUS AUTOUS as an NP.
If so, I have no problem with considering KOIMWMENOUS to be a
constituent of the NP, or a modifier of the head noun AUTOUS.
But I do not consider KOIMWMENOUS AUTOUS as an NP but as a "small
clause" that consists of a NP and a participial predicate.
AUTOUS has a double role. It plays the role of the object of the
main verb hEUREN and it plays the role of the subject of the participial
It is based on the basic principle:
(1) The modifiers of the head noun contributes
to determining the referent of the NP.
(2) Predicates explain the referent of the NP, which is
So, whether KOIMWMENOUS is a modifier or a predicate depends on
whether it helps determine the referent of AUTOUS or it explains
the referent of AUTOUS. Because AUTOUS is a demonstrative pronoun,
we should think that its referent is aleady known. Hence KOIMWMENOUS
does not contribute to determining the referent of AUTOUS but
describes or predicates the referent of AUTOUS.
The same explanation can be applied to Acts 7:59
KAI ELIQOBOLOUN TON STEFANON EPIKALOUMENON KAI LEGONTA.
Here the referent of TON STEFANON is already determined. Hence
EPIKALOUMENON and KAI LEGONTA does not modify TON STEFANON but
explains it. If it is acceptable in English, the literal translation
would be as follows:
They stoned Stephan, him calling upon and saying.
Here "him" is introduced to indicate the singular masculine
accusative ending of the participle. In sum, I consider
EPIKALOUMENON to be a "small clause" whose subject is implied.
In sum, TON STEFANON EPIKALOUMENON KAI LEGONTA is not an NP,
simply because the referent of TON STEFANON is completely determined
and so does not require any more modifiers.
If you do not agree with it, do you consider "Mary singing" to be an NP
"I heard Mary singing"?
What about "I consider him to be thoughtful"? I guess you would
consider "him to be thoughtful" as an NP.
were calling upon and saying.
More information about the B-Greek