From: c stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 23 2001 - 17:08:50 EST
Jude 5-7 P-R MajText
5 UPOMNHSAI DE UMAS BOULOMAI EIDOTAS UMAS APAX TOUTO OTI O KURIOS LAON EK
GHS AIGUPTOU SWSAS TO DEUTERON TOUS MH PISTEUSANTAS APWLESEN 6 AGGELOUS TE
TOUS MH THRHSANTAS THN EAUTWN ARCHN ALLA APOLIPONTAS TO IDION OIKHTHRION EIS
KRISIN MEGALHS HMERAS DESMOIS AIDIOIS UPO ZOFON TETHRHKEN 7 WS SODOMA KAI
GOMORRA KAI AI PERI AUTAS POLEIS TON OMOION TOUTOIS TROPON EKPORNEUSASAI KAI
APELQOUSAI OPISW SARKOS ETERAS PROKEINTAI DEIGMA PUROS AIWNIOU DIKHN
A Frame*** is not a topic, but it is related. A Frame is somewhat more
specific and also more complex than a presupposition.
Looking at Jd 5-7 MT we see several frames introduced in short succession:
In Jd 5, OTI O KURIOS LAON EK GHS AIGUPTOU SWSAS introduces the Exodus as a
Frame***. I am going to break some rules and claim that the topic here is
the entire O KURIOS LAON EK GHS AIGUPTOU SWSAS and that the comment overlaps
the topic. The comment being: LAON EK GHS AIGUPTOU SWSAS TO DEUTERON TOUS
MH PISTEUSANTAS APWLESEN. If this analysis seems untidy, then perhaps we
should suggest O KURIOS as the topic but I have problems with that.
In Jd 6, AGGELOUS TE TOUS MH THRHSANTAS THN EAUTWN ARCHN ALLA APOLIPONTAS
TO IDION OIKHTHRION introduces a new Frame the details of which are found in
Gen 6 and 1Enoch. Here the topic again is AGGELOUS . . . and the comment
is: KRISIN MEGALHS HMERAS DESMOIS AIDIOIS UPO ZOFON TETHRHKEN.
In Jd 7, SODOMA KAI GOMORRA KAI AI PERI AUTAS POLEIS introduces a new
Frame and are also the topic. The fate of SODOMA KAI GOMORRA is the comment:
TON OMOION TOUTOIS TROPON EKPORNEUSASAI KAI APELQOUSAI OPISW SARKOS ETERAS
PROKEINTAI DEIGMA PUROS AIWNIOU DIKHN UPECOUSAI.
This analysis isn't perfect. Perhaps the topics need to be reduced in the
first two examples to O KURIOS and AGGELOUS. I will not argue about that.
The main point is that a Frame is something more complex and subtle than a
presupposition. A Frame is a whole system of concepts which are introduced
to the discourse as a package. Once the frame is instantiated (brought into
action) the whole complex system of notions associated with that Frame
become "active" in the discourse.
Obviously I am still sorting all this stuff out. I am sure that the guys
like Wayne and Iver will find numerous things wrong here but progress,
however slow, seems to be made over time by trying to put these ideas to
work on real texts.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
***Heimerdinger* (page 138) quotes from Filmore**
"By the term 'frame' I have in mind any system of concepts related in such a
way that to understand any of them you have to understand the whole
structure in which it fits; when one of the things in such a structure is
introduced into a text, or into a conversation, all of the others are
automatically made available."
*Heimerdinger, Jean-Marc. Topic, focus and foreground in ancient Hebrew
narratives, Sheffield Academic Press, c1999.
**Filmore, Charles J.. Frame Semantics in Linguistic Society of Korea
(eds.), Linguistic in the Morning Calm (Hashin Pub .Co. 1982): pps. 111-38.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:12 EDT