Fanning and Porter
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 5 09:11:49 EST 2002
At 6:15 AM -0800 12/5/02, Harry W. Jones wrote:
>Another thing that I have noticed is that everyone that mentions Porter or
>Fanning seems to come down on Porter's side rather than on Fanning's. I was
>wondering why that was too.
I think this is assuredly a mistaken impression; while I have heard/read
positive reviews of Porter's work, I've heard/read even more that's
positive about Fanning. The archives are full of discussion on this: I just
did a quick search for "Fanning" in the archives and got 406 hits ranging
from August 1995 through last month; a similar search for "Porter" got 1002
hits--but this by no means is an indication that one of the two is
significantly preferred over the other. In fact, there have been several
voices expressing the view that Mari Olson's (also published) account of
aspect is preferable to both. She was once quite active on this list; I
don't know whether she is still with us.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list