[b-greek] RE: emphatic expressions [to Larsen and Philip Graber], "basic word order"

From: Iver Larsen (alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org)
Date: Fri Jan 26 2001 - 01:04:50 EST


Dear Mark,

Since you halfway address your essay to me, let me just make a few comments.

I found your suggestion of "foremost example" for ARCHGON interesting. I
understand ARCHGON as the one who leads the way or goes ahead of others. (We
seem to hit into that ARCW "be first" all the time these days.) TELEIWTHN
probably points to the end or goal for the race, although it might refer to
perfection as you suggest. I am wondering whether one could see Jesus as the
example we should look at from beginning to end during our race of faith.
I also agree that the word "emphasis" is a very broad and unclear word.
Sometimes I say "prominence" but that is a similarly broad word. There are
different kinds of emphasis as you say, although some of your examples go beyond
what I would consider emphasis. Often the emphasis is contrast, sometimes it is
focus on a topic. I would take your Heb 12:2 example to be topical as the author
seems to continue on the topic of faith from chapter 11, and I think I agree
with your understanding of "faith" in this verse. In chapter 11 we saw all those
examples of other people in the past running their "race of faith" and now it is
our turn to do the same in spite of hardships and hostility.
On the other hand I cannot recognise your description of the theory of basic
word order and derivations from that word order. I think the reason that I do
not subscribe to the theory you are opposing is that what you describe comes out
of generative linguistics which has its roots in Chomskyan linguistics of the
60s and 70s as you say. I am coming from a different brand of linguistics,
descriptive linguistics, and therefore don't think in terms of derivations from
a basic word order. Deviations, yes, but derivations, no. (I did study Chomsky
more than two decades ago when I did my MA in linguistics. As a mathematician I
found it theoretically interesting, but I have not personally found it useful
for the description of real languages.)
I cannot really comment on your theory, since I don't understand it. Your
sentence "The wh-word then forms a c-command chain with the sister of the head
of the verb phrase to satisfy the theta and case features" sounds fascinating. I
have no idea what it means. Your example is not enough for me to understand what
uneconomical syntax is nor do I understand much of the conclusions you are
making from the theory. Maybe if I had read the books you may have read I would
understand it.

Iver Larsen
Kolding, Denmark
alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT