[B-Greek] Vocab retention methodology (Drs Buth and Conrad)

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sun Apr 20 09:37:55 EDT 2008


On Apr 20, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:

> This is kind of a follow up and I think better
> communicates one of the issues I'm finding hard to
> understand.
>
> The reason for my hesitancy for using index cards
> WITHOUT CONTEXT is because there are so many nuances
> to some words. If I wanted to learn the word ARCH, and
> I put it with EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS, I might miss all
> the other nuances of ARCH and learn the usage for this
> use only. In other words, I'd really be interested in
> hearing from Drs Buth and Conrad (alphabetical order)
> on this nuance issue (semantic domain) and vocab
> memorization.
>
> To Drs Buth and Conrad: when you were first learning a
> Greek word, did you write down all its nuances? I
> mean, LOGOS has numerous nuances; so, did you write
> ALL the nuances down or did you write down, in context
> form, each nuance on separate index cards? Using ARCH
> above, how would you go about learning that ARCH means
> several different things depending on its usage in a
> context. I am really just wanting to go about
> memorizing more and more the best or most effective
> way. And it is obvious to me that you two have
> attained a level that few can. I mean no disrespect to
> others. There are others out here that have attained a
> very high level also, but these two come immediately
> to mind.

Sorry to be answering out of alpabetical order, but your followup is  
well-formulated and the two words you point at are good words to  
meditate upon in this particular context of vocabulary-learning-and- 
retention.

First, however, a negative point: you really don't want to learn any  
word that is used in more than one context in sole or primary  
association with a single context.
Secondly, flash-cards are not useful at all for learning abstract  
words or words that depend upon metaphorical extension of concrete  
meanings. Flash-cards are best for concrete words that have clear and  
distinct referents in everyday experience: apple, dog, horse, table,  
water, etc.

ARCH and LOGOS are both words that I realized quite early to cover a  
broad semantic range; I found it inescapable to study these words in a  
lexicon and also to think through how the extended senses relate to  
what appears to be the more fundamental sense:

ARCH is clearly conate with the verb ARCW (most basically "rule over")  
and ARCOMAI (most basically "begin"). If ARCH means "beginning," that  
clearly relates to the common usage of ARCOMAI, but how does it relate  
to ARCW and how does it relate to ARCH in the sense of "empire"? Some  
R&R (reflection and rumination) brought me to the realization that the  
fundamental sense of the root ARC- is "primacy" or "first-ness." or  
"being in front." So ARCH can mean "firstness" in the sense of having  
primary responsibility over subordinates and it can mean "firstness"  
in the sense of temporal priority to whatever is subsequent:  
"bginning," "first element" (Ionian physicists' earth, air, fire, and  
water, Democritus' atoms, etc.). This is a matter of careful  
reflection on the entries in an unabridged lexicon and examination of  
major cited evidence for the categorized senses listed there.

LOGOS is at least as fascinating a word. It is clearly related to the  
verb LEGW, but (a) we know that LOGOS can mean far more than "word" or  
"speech" and we don't have to go very far before we learn that LEGW  
relates very basically to a sense of "count" or "enumerate. The root  
LEG/LOG does in fact mean most basically 'count, count off, enumerate"  
-- precisely what English "tell" means most basically -- and if one  
reaches that equation of Greek LEG/LOG and English "tell/tale" early  
enough, it becomes very instructive in working out the broader  
extensions of these roots in both Greek and English. A LOGOS is a  
'count' or 'account', a ticking-off in order of items in a narrative  
or a discussion, etc., a putting of items in an order or the order  
into which items are put ('rationale') -- or it may be the faculty of  
counting and accounting ('reason'). The verb LEGW may remain pretty  
closely within the semantic domain of itemized statement, ticking off  
of notions, etc. -- all that English 'tell' comprises -- but one needs  
to study the lexical entry for LEGW and consider how it works with  
compounding prefixes also. Then there are several derivative  
"denominative" verbs derived from LOGOS: LOGIZOMAI, DIALOGIZOMAI,  
SULLOGIZOMAI and further there are the derivative nouns DIALOGOS,  
SULLOGOS, etc., etc.

What I'm suggesting is that the most useful way of learning vocabulary  
is by word-groups that are etymologically related. BUT be careful with  
this and don't fall into the etymological fallacy of assuming that all  
words etymologically cognate to some basic root bear some clear  
relationship to the root: extended senses may range pretty far from  
the source roots (who would ever have guessed that English "saunter"  
derives from a Norman French words for pilgrims, "voyageurs à la  
sainte terre" -- travelers to the holy land?) Nevertheless, there is  
no better way to learn basic vocabulary than by cognate groups: to do  
so you are forced, whether you like it or not, to pay attention to how  
context affects meaning and how the elements of word-formation  
conribute to aggregated meaning.

That method won't work for all words; as I noted before, so long as  
you stick to concrete words for concrete everyday referents, flash- 
cards with simple glosses are a reasonable expedient; but when you get  
into abstract words or words that depend upon extension, metaphorical  
or otherwise, from a basic sense,a study of cognates and a careful  
examination of lexical references is imperative.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list