[B-Greek] Stanely Porter on Greek grammars

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jan 19 07:35:43 EST 2004


This, in addition to what info is given in Ken's latest post and seconded by
Eric Weiss,makes me wonder whether Porter is talking about more than the
question of aspect as discussed by linguists. With regard to his comments
on obscure writing, it seems odd that some I've read lead me to suppose
that Fanning is easier to read and more accessible (to the mind, that is)
than what Porter has written. I'm going to propose a question for list
discussion or feedback later today on traditional Greek grammatical
categories, but I want to word that carefully and won't try to bring it up
right now.

At 1:49 PM +1100 1/19/04, Alexander Hopkins wrote:
>Kenneth Litwak wrote regarding Stanley Porter's assessment of modern
>grammars.
>
>Like Carl, I would prefer it, Kenneth, if you used a different font, as
>parts of your post were rendered gibberish on my system, too.
>
>If Porter is indeed saying those things that Kenneth mentioned, it would
>not surprise, but be an outworking of what he has said before.  I'll
>just cite a few instances:
>
>"Robertson, though occasionally arriving at perceptive formulations,
>appears in many ways to be the least systematic thinker of the major NT
>Greek grammarians (cf Dana/Mantey, 176-208, who follow Robertson very
>closely)." (Verbal Aspect, 58)
>
>Moule ('Idiom Book') "seems unable to evaluate the fundamentals of tense
>definition, fails to conceive of the Greek verbal network as an
>interconnected system, and thus treats each tense in isolation (and
>often according to English translation)." (V.A. 59)
>
>BDF is discussed on on pages 55-56 of V.A. with the summary, "Failure to
>define terms clearly, as well as a surprising neglect of criticism of
>the last thirty years, has rendered a major work unfortunately less than
>optimally useful."
>
>He concludes his first chapter, 'Research into Tense, Aktionsart and
>Aspect' by writing:  "This survey, brief in its individual treatments
>but long in its accumulated data, shows the history of research into the
>nature of Greek verbal usage, the methodologies employed, the
>unsatisfactory nature of most treatments, and the tremendous potential
>for future work.  Thus Rydbeck's statement that 'there is a prevalent
>but false assumption that everything in NT Greek scholarship has been
>done already' ("What Happened," 427) is rightly vindicated.  Certain
>progress has been made, but virtually all the major NT grammars adhere
>firmly to the comparative-philological approach, a method out of touch
>with current linguistic thought but, more than that, apparently with the
>Greek language itself. Only a very few more recent works show signs of
>incorporating recent semantic research into their discussions of verbal
>usage." (V.A. 65)
>
>This was published fifteen years ago.
>
>When he later responded to Fanning's work, he wrote, "Fanning's
>categories are the time-honored ones employed by such grammars as
>Blass-Debrunner-Funk and Dana and Mantey, among others.  Why?  Is it
>because these categories are sacrosanct, or fundamental in some
>intrinisic sense?  No, ...   They are merely enshrined by time and
>convention." (Studies in the GNT: theory and practice, p33; 1996)  A few
>pages on, he discusses Dunn's  commentary on Romans ("selected not
>because it is necessarily the worst offender" p35, fn 50 - which reminds
>one of his list of "culprits" (V.A. p183, fn 2) who make errors
>regarding the aorist), saying, "He reflects the kind of understanding of
>Greek verbs found in elementary textbooks and the rationalist discussion
>of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  ... Dunn never asks the
>important question of how these categories work together, quite possibly
>because the reference tools that he probably uses - such as
>Blass-Debrunner-Funk - do not ask these questions.  What is perhaps more
>disappointing to see, but not entirely surprising in the light of my
>comments above, is that Fanning's treatment reads much like the
>discussion of Aktionsart found in nineteenth-century research."
>(Studies, 36)
>
>(Perhaps Fanning is to be excused or pitied rather than condemned,
>however, since one can hardly be held guilty for failing to do that
>which one cannot do, and Porter writes of him, 'Fanning, it seems to me,
>is incapable of shedding a time-based perspective on verbs'.  Studies,
>32)
>
>As for your comment, Ken, "I'm not seeking here to tell you to go burn
>your volume by Turner on style, which Porter finds particularly poor
>methodologically," this too is unsurprising.  He wrote in V.A. (60),
>"Turner's exposition of usage is disappointing, possibly because he
>relies on Aktionsart (see Horsley, Context, 49-69, for a thorough
>critique of Turner's approach.)"  (The work of Horsley referred to here
>is his PhD thesis, of 1985;  its conclusions are more easily accessible
>through New Documents illustrating Early Christianity, vol 5, ch 3, 'The
>Syntax Volume of Moulton's Grammar';  at least one list member credits
>this with the opportunity to buy a copy of Moulton's Grammar which had
>not been burnt because of Turner's volume, but was being discarded cheap
>(http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-November/008405.html)!)
>
>I for one am grateful for those scholars who preceded;  and progress
>yielded by modern linguistics does not override the truth in Sir Isaac
>Newton's words, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the
>shoulders of giants."  This does not mean we must agree at all points
>with those who went before, but it is no bad thing to learn from them
>and to acknowledge their legacy.
>
>As for Porter's work itself, I have found that it gives the most useful
>distinction between Aktionsart and aspect that I have read, and so has
>enriched my understanding;  but as for his verbal theory, I confess
>myself as guilty as Fanning, being 'incapable of shedding a time-based
>perspective on verbs.'  Or just possibly, it's not that Fanning (and
>others) are incapable of divesting themselves of a view of the Greek
>verb that is contrary to Porter's, but simply that they disagree.
>
>Alex Hopkins
>Melbourne, Australia
>
>PS In a subsequent post, Kenneth added:
>
>>     Rod Decker, Mari Olsen and a few other people are noted by Porter
>for having done it right.  Those of course are not complete grammars,
>and Porter does not really say what we are supposed to use instead,
>though he does seem to think that anyone reading the Greek NT should
>become knowledgeable in verbal aspect theory.
>
>I would imagine that Ken McKay would be included among the 'few other
>people' (is this so, Kenneth?);  Porter draws upon many of his journal
>articles and his 'Greek Grammar for Students' in V.A., acknowledging
>that he differentiates between Aktionsart and aspect (V.A. 49) .
>Possibly of greater interest to list members is Zerwick's grammar,
>'Biblical Greek illustrated by Examples', which is referred to now and
>then on this list;  it is commended as "a long awaited effort in the
>study of aspect and the NT Greek verb" (V.A. 64).
>
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek

-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list