Louis L Sorenson wrote:Blass De Brunner is a syntax. It does not contain any charts of forms. Smyth has both forms and Syntax and morphology. No grammar has a more complete review of numbers, relatives,adverbs, adjectives, etc. Smyth glosses all citations with English so the student knows what is intended. Mounce is a first year 'beginners' grammar. It does not cover everything. Funk's grammar (A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek) is available on the B-Greek website at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/funk-grammar/pre-alpha/. Funk covers much more than Mounce, but is still lacking compared to Smyth. Things are changing with the internet. But it used to be that the student was left on his own -- and the place to go to find an answer was Smyth.
Louis L Sorenson wrote:The point that serious students of ancient Greek need to understand is that IF YOU DO NOT OWN SMYTH, AND DO NOT USE HIS GRAMMAR, you are a mildly interested amateur and not really serious about really learning about the language. IMOHO.
IF YOU DO NOT OWN SMYTH, OR DO NOT FREQUENT HIS GRAMMAR (electronic or book form), you are a mildly interested amateur and not really serious about really learning about the language. IMOHO.
Nock, a bachelor with a large library, gave me other good advice. “First buy texts, then lexica and indices, then commentaries and only then, if you can, secondary literature.” Dow’s advice was “Read the big books.” Prefer, he meant, Kühner-Gerth to Smyth, which was simply derivative and without independent value, RE to OCD. . . . I owe my library to the kindly advice of my teachers. None of the literary professors ever urged acquisition of books and none of their students ever acquired a library worth looking at.
cwconrad wrote:I was partly amused and partly saddened to learn that Rod Decker's discovery of Smyth's grammar was practically an accident, although I think that he would have discovered Smyth sooner or later somehow. In addition, I think that what's been said about BDF and the fact that (a) it isn't really up to date, and (b) it isn't really a full-scale Hellenistic Greek grammar, are related to another significant fact: for several decades now the authoritative academic voices in NT Greek have been insisting that the approach to Biblical Greek pedagogy and scholarship should be strictly synchronic. And the seminaries have accepted that and have ceased to insist that incoming students have an undergraduate grounding in Classical Greek. One consequence of all this is that, even if the funding were available now to underwrite the project of compiling a true Hellenistic Greek grammar, we might very well be hard put to assemble a body of competent teacher-scholars who could put together a Hellenistic Greek grammar even on the scope of Smyth. What I mean by that is a grammar that expounds Koine Greek morphology and syntax with a perspective on both earlier and later Greek morphology and usage, as Smyth expounds Classical Greek grammar with a look backward toward Homeric Greek and forward toward Hellenistic Greek.
Jonathan Robie wrote:For perspective - do the classics people wish they had a Danker to work on LSJ?
Louis’ enthusiasm for Smyth over-bubbled thus: The point that serious English speaking students of ancient Greek need to understand is that IF YOU DO NOT OWN SMYTH, OR DO NOT FREQUENT HIS GRAMMAR (electronic or book form), you are a mildly interested amateur and not really serious about really learning about the language. IMOHO.
Carl wrote: Ζήτω οὗτος ὁ διάλογος!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest