[B-Greek] syntax & information structure James 3:2-3 (was Syntax of Col 1:22)
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Aug 18 14:20:59 EDT 2009
On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Steve Runge wrote:
.
> You seem surprised about the agreement you find in their analysis.
.
Steve,
Actually the surprise is more rhetorical than real. I have been
reading "Dead Grammarians" (sans Wallace who is a special case) along
with linguists for 25 years. Just reminding some of the "young turks"
that the old NT scholars are not to be despised, the linguistic
framework you (not Steve R.) are all excited about now will be dead
and gone and people will continue to read the old NT scholars.
.
James 3:2 πολλὰ γὰρ πταίομεν ἅπαντες. εἴ
τις ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος
τέλειος ἀνὴρ δυνατὸς χαλιναγωγῆσαι
καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα. 3 εἰ δὲ τῶν ἵππων
τοὺς χαλινοὺς εἰς τὰ στόματα
βάλλομεν εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς
ἡμῖν, καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα αὐτῶν
μετάγομεν. .
JAMES 3:2 POLLA GAR PTAIOMEN hAPANTES. EI TIS EN LOGWi OU PTAIEI,
hOUTOS TELEIOS ANHR DUNATOS CALINAGWGHSAI KAI hOLON TO SWMA. 3 EI DE
TWN hIPPWN TOUS CALINOUS EIS TA STOMATA BALLOMEN EIS TO PEIQESQAI
AUTOUS hHMIN, KAI hOLON TO SWMA AUTWN METAGOMEN.
.
On Aug 17, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Yancy Smith wrote:
> Indeed, it seems like the difference between one and the other is in
> terms of efficacy of explanation, not so much the content of the
> explanation. So, language can be understood apart from linguistics?
> That sounds ... premodern. Alford's explanation also accounts well
> for the article with CALINOUS, "the bits (which are in common use:
> the bits, of which everyone knows)." Spanish uses the article in the
> same way, and, sometimes, so does the English!
.
Yancy,
.
One significant difference between Alford and Levinsohn, Alford
doesn't attempt to draw any broad generalizations about fronted
constituents and fit them into some sort of large theoretical
framework, Levinsohn does. Alford is commenting on the text and not
writing a grammar of discourse. That is one justification for reading
linguistics.
.
Levinsohn (DFNTG 2000 p63) marks TWN hIPPWN TOUS CALINOUS as a "point
of departure" and states that TWN hIPPWN is fronted with the "point of
departure" and marks a "switch of attention" from humans to horses.
Alford tells us in language almost anyone can understand that TWN
hIPPWN is new information whereas we already know about CALINOUS and
STOMATA since they are mentioned in the preceding context. Alford
claims that the position of TWN hIPPWN is emphatic and is connected
with the (head) noun STOMATA not CALINOUS. J.Huther agrees with him on
both points. The notion that fronted constituents are emphatic is a
commonplace generalization in the older exegetical works. However,
this observation isn't set into a large theoretical framework like
functional grammar (S.Dik, T.Givon). Perhaps this is one reason we
still read Alford and Meyer, we aren't required to demystify the
dynamics of a very complex hybrid (eclectic) theoretical framework[1]
to read Alford.
.
The notion of "points of departure" in Levinsohn isn't present in
Alford (stating the obvious) but Alford's treatment does have
implications for discourse cohesion and thematic development. The
difference is that Levinsohn pulls out, highlights and labels aspects
of the surface structure that contribute to discourse cohesion,
thematic development and so forth. This is a useful project, not to be
despised by advocates of the traditional grammar.
.
Elizabeth Kline
.
[1]Levinsohn's personal framework is the most complex one I have
encountered in my linguistic travels.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list