[B-Greek] "Crossing the Rubicon" (learning Greek NOT in English)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jun 20 07:40:10 EDT 2007


This has gotten rather far afield, it seems to me, from what was  
originally being highlighted-- the question whether one can learn to  
read Greek without attempting
to convert the Greek into one's native language -- and whether one  
can think in ancient Greek. Inasmuch as ancient Greeks seem to have  
done it, I would think that there's a positive answer to be given to  
that question. I think that over the past several centuries there  
have been many who were trained in the schools even as C.S. Lewis  
describes, who have read oodles of ancient Greek texts and have long  
since ceased to think about how those texts might be Englished.  
Dictionaries are by no means useless because confrontation with words  
never before seen must necessarily occur repeatedly -- but I think  
that the usage of the particles is something that one picks up in the  
course of voluminous reading, not through the latest disclosures of  
discourse analysis. Those disclosures may help, but after-the-fact  
analysis of a text by a trained linguist, I'm inclined to think, is  
not quite like a biologist's account of how an acorn turns into an  
oak tree. And the oak tree does it so effortlessly (or so it seems to  
us, if we're around long enough to watch it grow).

Carl W. Conrad

On Jun 20, 2007, at 4:33 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Robie" <jwrobie at mindspring.com>
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Yes, I think that's easier with MEN ... DE than with DE alone.  
>> Naus and
>> ship refer to the same thing, but what does DE refer to? Nothing  
>> that an
>> English speaker has any experience with ....
>>
>
> Yes, there is no equivalent word in English for DE. But it is more  
> helpful to think of descriptive
> meanings than trying to find equivalents in a another language.  
> Many modern dictionaries give
> descriptive meanings rather than (or in addition to) glosses.
> For instance, NAUS is described by L&N as "a larger ocean-going  
> vessel." It has a fairly small area
> or meaning. Compare that to PLOION which is described as "any kind  
> of boat, from small fishing boats
> as on Lake Galilee to large seagoing vessels". It has a large area  
> of meaning, and it includes
> within its area of meaning the smaller area that NAUS occupies, at  
> least in Hellenistic Greek. Both
> NAUS and PLOION can refer to what we call a ship, and that is why  
> descriptions are more helpful than
> "equivalent glosses".
>
> Concerning DE, the meaning is probably best described as  
> "indicating a change or new aspect". (I am
> indebted to Randall Buth for this piece of wisdom.) This could be a  
> change of theme, a change of
> speaker, a change of situation, a change from foreground to  
> background or vice versa, a new aspect
> about what is being talked about or a contrast to what has just  
> been said. The particulars depend on
> context, but the change idea is basic to the meaning and use of DE.
>
> KAI indicates "continuation or addition" which again needs to be  
> fleshed out in the various
> contexts.
> So, what I am suggesting is not to think in terms of equivalent  
> words like "but" or "and", but in
> terms of broader function and meaning.
>
> GAR introduces "further explanation, support for or background  
> information related to the
> foregoing". These particles can only be properly handled by a  
> modern discourse analysis, and
> therefore L&N and all older lexicons are not particularly helpful.
>
> OUN indicates "consequence/inference or continuation after a  
> break". Moulton and Geden(1978)
> suggested 8 functions for OUN:
>
> 1. Inference (logical consequence)
> 2. Consequent command or exhortation
> 3. Consequent effect or response
> 4. Inferential question
> 5. Summary (a final inference, a conclusive statement)
> 6. Adversative
> 7. Continuation or resumption of narrative
> 8. Continuation of discussion
>
> However, their number 6 is a mistake and should be deleted. In all  
> the examples they cite for number
> 6, it is something else in the context that carries the contrast.
> So, we are down to seven different kinds of "consequense or  
> continuation."
> We also need to take into account idiosyncracies and preferred  
> usage by different authors. For
> instance, the last two as they occur in the GNT are frequent in  
> John, but never occur in Matthew or
> Mark. John is using OUN in a rather special way which needs a  
> separate analysis.
>
> Iver Larsen



More information about the B-Greek mailing list