two models?

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Oct 24 00:57:03 EDT 2002


on 10/23/02 8:22 PM, Michael Burer wrote:

> I have to admit that reading posts of this nature frustrate me, mainly
> because there is so much under the surface not expressed explicitly
> which probably should be.

Michael,

It has been express explicitly over a period of six years. It is an ongoing
discussion, you just got into it kind of late.

Just a few points that should be made clear:

There are more than two models.

Rejecting the traditional model does not mean ignoring the history of Greek
grammar as a discipline.

GGBB is a good resource for this history. There are a lot useful facts in
GGBB. Use it like a museum, walk through it and see the different exhibits.

What is lacking in the traditional approach is a unifying conceptual
framework. There really isn't any model that holds together the traditional
approach. It is a collection of odd  components, held together, if at all,
by bailing wire and bubble gum.

I cannot list off the top of my head all the models that have been presented
in the last 100 years (since F. de Saussure). One example of a unifying
conceptual framework was developed by PIke (SIL) a several decades ago.

Then we have transformational grammar. I was rather enamored with Chomsky
('59-'65) in the early 80's until I discovered that there was a great ugly
ditch between syntax and semantics, a ditch the size of the Grand Canyon.
Evil Knivel could not jump this ditch.

These models are not easy to grasp by reading a thin paperback. It takes
some time and work.

The idea that one can be an expert on NT Greek and not be well read in
linguistics is rather an novel concept.  Would you want to fly on an
airliner designed by a group of Engineers who thought it was rather too much
bother to study math?

No more time for this now,

greetings, clay
 

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062





More information about the B-Greek mailing list