[98 Degrees]

Any takers,

At the end of Machen XXVI, he says, "It should now be increasingly evident how much of Greek syntax is dependent on the distinction between the attributive and the predicate position." Whatever. My question is whether there is any difference in meaning between pas, pasa, pan in the attributive and predicative position.

Muchos gracias.

[Bartholomew]

98 degrees:

Your question's profundity is not so unsurprising when one considers your choice of a username. If you had but glanced at sections 367-8 in the chapter, you would have noticed that Machen gives similar examples for both the attributive and the predicative position, implying that there is ambiguity. Because of the ambiguity, the meaning obviously overlaps to the point of sameness.

Bartholomew
_________________
Pertaining to the wise, all but wisdom is folly.

[Mr. Schwandt]

Most of the confusion comes from the similarity between the English terms "all" and "whole". They are synonyms and may be used either as adjectives or pronouns (all of ..., the whole of...). Since these words such close synonyms it will often not matter which is used in translation. The main factor will normally be English idiom. We prefer to modify some words with all verses whole (e.g. all remembrance), and vice-versa (e.g. the whole judgment). Machen gives a quick translation method which helps avoid some problems with attribute usage with definite singular nouns. His formula doesn't show the range of meaning and flexibility of translation in the other scenarios. Remembering that the number of the modified noun is important, here are all (the whole?) of our options.

Here is what pa:V may mean when it:
1) modifies a singular indefinite noun (no articles);
every, every kind, each, any, just any (collective nouns are treated as plural)
(e.g. every man) - notice that "whole" would not work here.

2) modifies a plural indefinite noun (no articles);
all
(e.g. all men; all Israel) - notice that since "whole" is a singular complete unit in English we can pluralize it in adjective or pronoun forms ("the whole of the men" is still singular). The same type of restriction occurs with the word "few" we simply can't make it singular.

3) is in the predicate position modifying a singular definite noun (adj. without art., noun with art.)
the whole, all
(e.g. the whole creation/ all the creation)

4) is in the predicate position modifying a plural definite noun (adj. without art., noun with art.)
all
(e.g. all the men) - whole may not be used here for the same reasons as #2

5) is the attributive position modifying a singular definite noun (adj. preceded by art)
whole
(e.g. the whole law) - all may be permissible in some contexts (e.g. all the night, verses the whole night) but there is a slight distinction between the range of meaning in this scenario and what we had in #3. Greek writers chose this construction when the modified noun was regarded as a whole, in contrast to its individual parts. "All" doesn't bring this out as clearly since its antonym is "none", contrasted with the antonym of "whole" being "part". This difference in emphasis can be seen by the fact that whole cannot be pluralized and the awkwardness of it in the final sentence of my first paragraph. The adjective "all" is the plural of the adjective "whole" as so it is used in #6. The difference may analogous to the distinction in aspect between progressive and simple.

6) is the attributive position modifying a plural definite noun (adj. preceded by art)
all
(e.g. all the men were twelve Ac 19:7= the number of the men was twelve) The focus is on the total unit rather than the amount.