Re: Definitions- help!

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Fri Aug 20 1999 - 20:25:57 EDT

I agree 100% with what I think Carl is saying here.

However the ideas being cast about among the literary
post-structuralists are ideas that raise some questions about Greek
Grammar that are worth exploring. The problem, which Carl clearly points
out, is that it is difficult if not impossible to discuss these issues
in any sort of coherent fashion until we have some sort of agreement on
how we are going to go about it. Otherwise we are just jousting at
windmills. I don't think this agreement is going to arrive anytime soon.
It involves more than just defining a few terms. It involves agreeing on
a common way of looking at the world (at least a few share
presuppositions) and common way to approach problem solving. I talk
every week in person with a fellow who has the terminal degree (Ph.D.)
in Derridaism and after hours and hours of in person discussion I am
about to give it up. It is like trying to nail Jello to a tree. We lack
the necessary minimal set of shared presuppositions required to make a
discussion fruitful.

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

---------- >From: "Carl W. Conrad" <> >To: Biblical Greek <> >Subject: Re: Definitions- help! >Date: Fri, Aug 20, 1999, 4:24 PM >

>>As Humpty Dumpty would say, "structuralism" and "post-modern" mean what >>ever I want them to mean. > > And this, in my opinion, is precisely the problem. Although the terms may > have some distinct meaning for certain persons, it's often DIFFERENT > meanings for DIFFERENT persons. I rather think that throwing these terms > around in discussions of Greek grammars tends to be an exercise in "damning > with faint praise" or conversely, "recommending with serious reservations." > I don't think it is very helpful to inject these literary and philosophical > value-judgments into a discussion of grammatical reference books or > textbooks UNLESS, when one does so, one states clearly WHY one thinks that > a "structuralist" or "post-modern" characterization of a grammar is a > recommendation for it or a black mark against it. Do we really have to > throw this sort of obscurantist description about willy-nilly?

--- B-Greek home page: You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [] To unsubscribe, forward this message to To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:36 EDT