Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pmAll reference works that do not differentiate words into their respective moieties are inadequate.
If moeity means group here, and you are drawing on some well-established classification, pointing to that would be helpful.
It is an anthropological word. I am derivibg it specifically from its use in describing Australian Aboriginal kinship, and hence language usage patterns. There is no specific correlation between Aboriginal language usage patterns and the way that Greek is used, but it was at the time that I was Australian Aboriginal languages and cultures that I first realised the systematic nature of the Greek that I was also reading each day. Aboriginal languages are the possession of the tribe, and it is a privilage when anthropologists and liguistists study the languages, it by the permission of the elders of the tribe. If you were to study
Yolngu for example, you need to first undertake to respect the language. The second reason is that terms like "social register" and "dialect", which are more familiar also carry so much other baggage.
The features of discourse styles in English, or in the avoidance relationships of Aboriginal society are not not the same as they are in Greek. English tends to express relative social power, while in Aboriginal society, people conform themselves to one or other of the pre-defined styles. In the way of conforming to predefined styles, Greek is similar. The two-fold nature of open and avoidance relationships in Aboriginal society is similar to Greek, but not the nature of what the two are. Avoidance style in Aboriginal languages, as the name suggests, avoids mentioning things specifically, and may require the use of specific words and vocabulary, while joking style allows familiar even to the point of ribald comments to be made without a sense of shame. Within a particular social relationship, members of Australian Aboriginal society speak in the appropriate style exclusively.
Greek has a similar division into the vague and the direct, except that Greek is structured into an alternating pattern, with the discourse markers affecting which moiety of the language is going to be used. That is why the subject of this thread includes the word "structured".
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pmIf you believe that the Greek lexicon has a particular set of well-defined groups that must be distinguished, could you please describe them precisely, explain how you can distinguish them, and give some evidence that you have distinguished them correctly?
Would you like a Coke or fries with that?
Seriously, though, if this is accepted, then it will take decades before it is well defined, for now let's avoid anything that sounds like, "Prove to us that you are not wrong." "Prove that you don't have mistakes." That mode of questioning is a road to war that I would like to keep away from. We already know that you value logical proofs as a means of finding truths, while I think that logical proof is only needed of somebody needs to be convinced of something not obvious, and that if truth is not self-evident, then it is not truth. At the end of what I am going to say, you will say that you are not convinced, and I will say that I was explaining not convincing. To forestall repeating that cycle again, I propose the following.
If you (or anybody) would like to know about this, then enter into a creative dialogue. I think that "explain how you [ie "I"] can distinguish them" is a good starting point.
The easy answer is that you can't, because you don't know what they are. If you knew what they were, then you wouldn't need to dustinguish, only recognise them. If the starting point was easy, then we woukd have all learnt it from about week 5, but we didn't. So, where to begin?
Have a look at the first section of the story of the prodigal son.
Luke 15:11-13 wrote:11Εἶπεν δέ, Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱούς·
12 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ νεώτερος αὐτῶν τῷ πατρί, Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας. Καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον. 13 Καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας συναγαγὼν ἅπαντα ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς ἀπεδήμησεν εἰς χώραν μακράν, καὶ ἐκεῖ διεσκόρπισεν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ, ζῶν ἀσώτως.
Where is the most striking synonym? It can be phrasal or a single word. Where is the authour saying the same thing twice?
Well, οὐσία and βίος are two, δίδωμι τινι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος and διαιρέω might be another pair.
What are the distinctive words?
A few of them might be συνάγω, ἀποδημέω, διασκορπίζω, ζήω and ἀσώτως.
The basis for distinguishing which of the moieties the synonyms belong to is the associations of the distinctive words.
Have a look through συνάγω.
Matthew 12:30 wrote:καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ, σκορπίζει.
Who is the ὁ μὴ συνάγων? It could be anybody.
Matthew 25:24 wrote:Κύριε, ἔγνων σε ὅτι σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος, θερίζων ὅπου οὐκ ἔσπειρας, καὶ συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισας·
Here the γιγνώσκω introduces a general statement, while θερίζω, σπείρω, συνάγω and διασκορπίζω are specific concrete actions.
Matthew 26:3-4 wrote:Τότε συνήχθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τοῦ λεγομένου Καϊάφα, 4 καὶ συνεβουλεύσαντο ἵνα τὸν Ἰησοῦν δόλῳ κρατήσωσιν καὶ ἀποκτείνωσιν.
Here in the passive voice, συνάγομαι sets the general context for what will follow and belongs to the abstract moiety. Voice seemps to be a way to switch between moieties. We know that κρατέω and ἀποκτείνω belong to the concrete / specific moiety, but for συμβουλεύω there is not enough NT evidence to categorise it.
Let me jog on for a moment, before coming back and plodding through those opening phrases again.
14 Δαπανήσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα, ἐγένετο λιμὸς ἰσχυρὸς κατὰ τὴν χώραν ἐκείνην, καὶ αὐτὸς ἤρξατο ὑστερεῖσθαι.
Genitives (or even nominatives) absolute are amazing things, functioning as one of the contextualising statements.
Based on Luke 14:28 [Τίς γὰρ ἐξ ὑμῶν, ὁ θέλων (concrete moiety) πύργον (concrete moiety) οἰκοδομῆσαι (concrete moiety), (contextualising statement) οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει (abstract moiety) τὴν δαπάνην (by association an abstract moiety word too), εἰ ἔχει τὰ εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν; (concrete moiety word).] δαπανάω is an abstract moiety word, ie that it was a rather long-term and involved process (cf. the widow and physicians).
Words on the vicinity of these types of theme-setting ἐγένετο statements, don't follow the moiety rules as expected. λιμὸς is a concrete / specific moiety word, but the statement functions as if it were abstracted.
15 Καὶ πορευθεὶς ἐκολλήθη ἑνὶ τῶν πολιτῶν τῆς χώρας ἐκείνης · καὶ ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ βόσκειν χοίρους.
The word πορεύομαι tends to belong to the abstract moiety, and the sense of this ἐκολλήθη is not a literal attachment, so functioning in the abstract moiety with an appropriate meaning is probable. We know our old friend πέμπω is from the concrete moiety, so that marks the phrase as concrete moiety.
16 Καὶ ἐπεθύμει γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν κερατίων ὧν ἤσθιον οἱ χοῖροι· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου αὐτῷ.
ἐπεθύμει putting this "he day dreamed of" makes the following statement abstract. Relative clauses seem to follow similar, but different rules, and are generally abstract in sense.
The verb δίδωμι is a bit big to have been fully looked at yet, but in contradistinction to the abstract phrase, I think it is concrete here.
17 Εἰς ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἐλθὼν εἶπεν, Πόσοι μίσθιοι τοῦ πατρός μου περισσεύουσιν ἄρτων, ἐγὼ δὲ λιμῷ ἀπόλλυμαι·
Πόσος and περισσεύω here are both abstract words. ἄρτος is not a bun in his hand or mouth, but in his imagination. On the contrary, he felt the hunger and was quite literally being destroyed.
18 ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου, καὶ ἐρῶ αὐτῷ, Πάτερ, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου·
19 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἄξιος κληθῆναι υἱός σου· ποίησόν με ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
πορεύομαι - see above
The πρὸς - εἰς distinction here is a tendency, rather than a rule in the abstract - concrete moieties distinction.
κληθῆναι in the abstract sense of "be known as"
ποίησόν is typically a concrete word.
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pmcould you please describe them precisely,
It seems that there are two of what I have called moieties, and that words are either strictly one or the other, or they can be either - with a different meaning according to the one they are in.
As this is off the limit of maps in grammar, I think it is too early to make very strict definitions.
This is too long to risk losing on digital technology, so I'll break this post.