two models?

Michael Burer burer at bible.org
Fri Oct 25 14:30:31 EDT 2002


No need for Einstein's theory. I would simply appreciate a little
respect and courtesy.

Yes, I am aware of Stanley Porter, but I was not aware of the term you
used (systemic functionalism). I also know that his theories of
linguistics are not accepted by everyone. (Have you heard of Buist
Fanning? He has a neat little piece called "Verbal Aspect" that holds
its own quite well against Porter's views.) I was honestly trying to
dialogue on these issues, and at least I know now which linguistic
theory you accept. Thanks for the clarification.

It's one thing to hold to a theory for understanding the text and
dialogue about it. It is quite another to hold to a theory and claim
that everyone else who doesn't hold your theory has their head in the
sand. Apparently you have chosen the latter. I wish you the best with
it.

Grace,
Michael Burer

-----Original Message-----
From: c stirling bartholomew [mailto:cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:20 AM
To: Biblical Greek
Subject: [b-greek] Re: two models?


on 10/25/02 6:26 AM, Michael Burer wrote:

> (1) Would you explain briefly what systemic functionalism is and how 
> it works as a unifying framework? I am not familiar with that model of

> linguistics.

Would you like me to throw in an executive overview of Einstein's
General Relativity Theory? Have you ever heard of Stanley E. Porter? He
has done a little publishing on Hellenistic Greek in the last 14 years.
He is a proponent of Systemic Functionalism (SFL). Read him, find out.

> 
> (2) From what you wrote I understand you to see no connection between 
> form and meaning . . .

Wrong again. 

 

Here is:  THE MAIN ISSUE

The hybrid categories that combine morpho-syntactic elements with
semantic elements are completely misleading. For example take the
"Gnomic Aorist"


Wallace: 

******************************
Gnomic Aorist

A.  Definition

The aorist indicative is occasionally used to present a timeless,
general fact. When it does so, it does not refer to a particular event
that did happen, but to a generic event that does happen. Normally, it
is translated like a simple present tense. This usage is quite rare in
the NT.
******************************

The semantic notion of timelessness is not a feature of the Aorist form.
Timelessness is not communicated to the reader/listener by verb
inflection. It is completely misleading to talk about a "Gnomic Aorist"
in the same way that it would be to talk about Marxist bananas, since
bananas are not capable of holding political ideologies. When NT Greek
students discuss categories like this they are talking about "nothing at
all" since the "Gnomic Aorist" is a non-existent animal.

The relationship between form and meaning is a very complex topic. If
you don't think this is true, then here is an assignment. Define a set
of formal morpho-syntactic rules that determine when the Aorist has
temporal significance. Come back in five years and tell us what you have
come up with.


csb

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



---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [burer at bible.org] To
unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu








More information about the B-Greek mailing list