From: clayton stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Aug 08 1999 - 07:28:57 EDT
I keep getting asked off list "what don't you like about Wallace?" This
question has a certain dejavu quality to it.
The best way understand this without a long lecture on Saussure,
Semiotics and other obscure issues is to do a comparison between Stanley
Porter's Idioms of NT Greek with Wallace. Take a look at how Porter
handles the greek case system and then look at Wallace. Note how
abstract Porter's treatment of the cases is. Note how Wallace gives 35
or so types of genitives.
You need to know some linguistics to understand why
Porter is different from Wallace on the theoretical level but you can
see the difference without knowing any linguistics at all.
>From: "clayton stirling bartholomew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: Biblical Greek <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Wallace: Beyond the Basics
>Date: Sat, Aug 7, 1999, 8:27 PM
> Wallace is useful if you don't mind the overall approach he takes to
> questions of grammar. There is a lot of useful information in his book
> but I have a hard time separating the "information" from the method and
> the method is one I don't buy into. I would like to hear a discussion
> between Stanley Porter and Micheal Palmer and Daniel Riano and on the
> methodology employed in Wallace's book.
> I would also like to hear it discussed by a semiologist like Umberto
> Eco. But after all this is the real world and
> "You can't always get what you want." Mick Jagger
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:35 EDT