two models?
Michael Burer
burer at bible.org
Thu Oct 24 06:19:49 EDT 2002
Clay wrote:
-----Original Message-----
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?
-----------------------------------
Clay,
>From what you have written, I understand you to think that since there
is no broad conceptual framework for traditional morpho-syntactical
analysis that it is not valid and that it is essentially a museum relic,
implying that it has no present value for understanding the text. Why
does the lack of a supra-structure on the discourse level invalidate the
traditional understanding of the relationships between words, phrases,
and clauses? That impresses me as a non sequitur. For the
supra-structure to be valid, it has to be built on the right pieces
(hence the reason I favor a pyramid model for understanding the
relationships here). I would argue that there is much to be understood
from traditional morpho-syntactical analysis, and that can form a very
stable base on which to build discourse analysis. So the inverted charge
could be made towards what you have said: your unifying conceptual
framework is not valid if it is not built on a solid understanding of
morphology, grammar, syntax, etc. on the word and phrase level.
Michael Burer
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list