No subject


Tue May 3 10:41:24 EDT 2011


Trying to think from a practical perspective, when I think of a verbal 
action, I do not think of a particular form until after the context it will 
be used in is considered.  So, first an action is concieved of in the mind 
which has meaning to me.  Then, the form arises as I have learned it which 
best serves the aspect/tense/point of veiw: go, going, come, coming, went, 
gone etc. The form, it seems to me, is only representing the reality and is 
subservient to what is the most convenient way of expressing it.  Meaning in 
context underlies the real/used forms, while the analytical, abstract form 
would be an artificial construct of the linguist, again convenient for the 
purposes of the linguist. Do not most speakers of more than one language 
think primarily in one language and then match the words they are thinking 
of with forms in the second language with out ever touching base with a root 
or lexical form? In the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area, there are a lot of German 
speaking people who think in German and speak in a literal English rendition 
of their thoughts like "turn around the corner". When children have not 
learned or can not remember the correct form, they use rules they learned 
for creating a form  or substitute in one they do know: "I goed to the 
bathroom", "I should've went too" to express what they mean. I guess I would 
vote for calling it an analytical form which is artificial since I do not 
think the language user is conscious of it. Rather the user is conscious of 
the meaning and the learned conventions for expressing it.

In Christ,

Ross Purdy

rossjpurdy at hotmail.com


>From: Randall Buth <ButhFam at compuserve.com>
>Reply-To: Randall Buth <ButhFam at compuserve.com>
>To: Biblical Greek <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>Subject: [b-greek] When is a form real?
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:07:58 -0400
>
>On forms like FILEW
>(in comparison with FILW~, FILEI~N, FILH~SAI) ,
>Ward EGRAYEN:
> >Randall calls them [FILEW-rb) "artificial"; I would call them
>"underlying".<
>
>Both terms raise the same pedagogical questions:
>
>When is a form synchronically real for language users?
>And when are language users conscious of a
>[underlying, artificial, abstract, analytical]
>form?
>What forms are psychologically most central for a language user?
>What forms are the most efficient for fluent language use?
>And in line with Ward' linguistic approach, what can we learn from general
>linguistics and language acquistion studies?
>
>I will present a paper on this issue at SBL, Biblical Lexicography Section,
>this
>November in Denver.
>UMEIS PANTES  KEKLHMENOI  ESTE.
>
>ERRWSQE
>Randall Buth
>EN IEROSOLUMOIS
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [rossjpurdy at hotmail.com]
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
>$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp




More information about the B-Greek mailing list