Page 1 of 1

Jonly Joihin - Thesis on δε

Posted: June 22nd, 2019, 10:35 am
by Matthew Longhorn
In my obsessive searching for new material I just stumbled across this 2019 thesis on the meaning of δε in 1 corinthians
https://digital.library.sbts.edu/bitstr ... sAllowed=y

Figured it would be worth posting as unlikely to have been spotted by many given its recency

Re: Jonly Joihin - Thesis on δε

Posted: June 22nd, 2019, 3:27 pm
by Bruce McKinnon
Thanks for posting this. I've read the concluding chapter and hopefully got the gist of his lengthy dissertation.

Re: Jonly Joihin - Thesis on δε

Posted: June 22nd, 2019, 3:46 pm
by Matthew Longhorn
No problem, trying to not spam the forum with these things but figured some of them may be useful

Re: Jonly Joihin - Thesis on δε

Posted: June 24th, 2019, 2:32 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
From the thesis, page 70 (pdf 82):
From the survey of Classical and Koine Greek grammars and lexica, there are two opposing views of δέ due to the different approaches: traditional (historicalcomparative) and discourse linguistic grammar. The traditional grammars and lexica of both Classical and Koine Greek tend to approach the particle δέ from the contentoriented (semantic) side, arguing that it is a coordinate conjunction. The particle δέ mainly carries contrastive or continuative meaning and is, therefore, either an adversative (contrastive) or copulative (continuative) particle. As a conjunction, δέ operates on the sentence level.
Discourse grammars, on the other hand, contend that the particle δέ is a linguistic marker of discourse without any inherent semantic content. The “meanings” or “glosses” attributed to δέ are derived from the inference of its function when implemented in various contexts. When δέ functions as a contrastive conjunction, for example, the contrastive force comes not from the presence of the particle δέ but is deduced from the context. Both Classical and Koine Greek discourse linguistics view δέ as a discourse marker.
The author of the thesis talks about this repeatedly upto page 70. I have a vague suspicion that this is not an accurate representation. The whole discussion of "semantics" seems to me to be flawed. I don't understand why we need to set up this radical either/or polarization as if classical philology got it wrong for hundreds of years and now the text-linguists have liberated them from their bondage.

For example: "the contrastive force comes not from the presence of the particle δέ but is deduced from the context."

Presenting this as a new idea not found in classical philology is IMO wrong. I also don't find this statement a satisfactory representation.

Re: Jonly Joihin - Thesis on δε

Posted: June 25th, 2019, 11:03 am
by Stirling Bartholomew
In the last fifty years some of the people who study of biblical languages have very gradually embraced some aspects of "modern linguistics" and there has developed over that time what you might call a foundation myth for "modern linguistics" among biblical scholars that gets told and retold over and over again. 25 years ago I was telling this myth myself and embraced it without much reflection. Some time after reading Margret Sim's thesis on ἵνα I began to question some aspects of the myth. I think the picture that is portrayed of Classical Philology in the foundation myth is a sort of propaganda tool for justifying the study of linguistics.

Beyond that, I also have questions about the treatment of semantics. How can we claim that a particle is semantically empty and then turn around and talk about it's semantic function as Jonly Joihin appears to be doing.

Re: Jonly Joihin - Thesis on δε

Posted: June 25th, 2019, 10:21 pm
by Barry Hofstetter
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: June 24th, 2019, 2:32 pm From the thesis, page 70 (pdf 82):
From the survey of Classical and Koine Greek grammars and lexica, there are two opposing views of δέ due to the different approaches: traditional (historicalcomparative) and discourse linguistic grammar. The traditional grammars and lexica of both Classical and Koine Greek tend to approach the particle δέ from the contentoriented (semantic) side, arguing that it is a coordinate conjunction. The particle δέ mainly carries contrastive or continuative meaning and is, therefore, either an adversative (contrastive) or copulative (continuative) particle. As a conjunction, δέ operates on the sentence level.
Discourse grammars, on the other hand, contend that the particle δέ is a linguistic marker of discourse without any inherent semantic content. The “meanings” or “glosses” attributed to δέ are derived from the inference of its function when implemented in various contexts. When δέ functions as a contrastive conjunction, for example, the contrastive force comes not from the presence of the particle δέ but is deduced from the context. Both Classical and Koine Greek discourse linguistics view δέ as a discourse marker.
The author of the thesis talks about this repeatedly upto page 70. I have a vague suspicion that this is not an accurate representation. The whole discussion of "semantics" seems to me to be flawed. I don't understand why we need to set up this radical either/or polarization as if classical philology got it wrong for hundreds of years and now the text-linguists have liberated them from their bondage.

For example: "the contrastive force comes not from the presence of the particle δέ but is deduced from the context."

Presenting this as a new idea not found in classical philology is IMO wrong. I also don't find this statement a satisfactory representation.
I have not read the posted thesis (and hope to avoid doing so), but let me suggest that for the users of the language current to the time period, δέ meant something. Your characterization makes it sound as though it's a filler, but that makes little sense. Determined by context, but I would suggest that it's the context that calls for the use of the particle, which in turns gives us a better sense of the context. Sounds like meaning to me.

Re: Jonly Joihin - Thesis on δε

Posted: June 27th, 2019, 2:36 pm
by Benjamin Kantor
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: June 24th, 2019, 2:32 pm From the thesis, page 70 (pdf 82):
From the survey of Classical and Koine Greek grammars and lexica, there are two opposing views of δέ due to the different approaches: traditional (historicalcomparative) and discourse linguistic grammar. The traditional grammars and lexica of both Classical and Koine Greek tend to approach the particle δέ from the contentoriented (semantic) side, arguing that it is a coordinate conjunction. The particle δέ mainly carries contrastive or continuative meaning and is, therefore, either an adversative (contrastive) or copulative (continuative) particle. As a conjunction, δέ operates on the sentence level.
Discourse grammars, on the other hand, contend that the particle δέ is a linguistic marker of discourse without any inherent semantic content. The “meanings” or “glosses” attributed to δέ are derived from the inference of its function when implemented in various contexts. When δέ functions as a contrastive conjunction, for example, the contrastive force comes not from the presence of the particle δέ but is deduced from the context. Both Classical and Koine Greek discourse linguistics view δέ as a discourse marker.
The author of the thesis talks about this repeatedly upto page 70. I have a vague suspicion that this is not an accurate representation. The whole discussion of "semantics" seems to me to be flawed. I don't understand why we need to set up this radical either/or polarization as if classical philology got it wrong for hundreds of years and now the text-linguists have liberated them from their bondage.

For example: "the contrastive force comes not from the presence of the particle δέ but is deduced from the context."

Presenting this as a new idea not found in classical philology is IMO wrong. I also don't find this statement a satisfactory representation.
I got the same sense reading the quote you posted. It would be incredible if the history of scholarship really broke down along those lines. But I should withhold some judgment, since I haven’t read the thesis.