Splitting Compound Verbs?

Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Integrate a discussion of accents / word stress into you

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Hughes wrote:I understand that you want to be as right as possible in what you are publishing, but practically speaking, as right as possible = to the limits of current (mediaeval) scholarship. If you want to use different scholarship, you'll need to prove it (or at least lay it out theoretically) then use it.
Yes, that is my only motivation. If I did want to use different scholarship, someone would need to provide a better theory. But I don’t think that will be me. If you or someone thinks there is some merit to pursuing it, I would be willing to help. But I would much rather have people who are more informed on this topic, to simply give me valid reasons why it won’t work. That would satisfy my intellectual curiosity, and then I can get on to better things.
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Hughes wrote:How will the competent reader be helped by splitting them?

I understand how it could be useful for an intermediate students working through a text where the derivation morphology has been simplified to see which words had a direct correspondence between form and meaning, and by implication where that is not the case.

I am not convinced this type of division is useful to those already competent in Greek.

Who benefits? is a relevant question, I think. Even if you are proved right, I think there still needs to be a reason of benefit to make a change.
That is true. I would have to weigh any remaining evidence for splitting against its usefulness. And it would be hard to answer that question without actually undertaking the task. I suspect that it might be able to eliminate over 1000 lexical entries of compound verbs and that would be something helpful. But I won’t know if that is actually the case without attempting to look at every word on a case by case basis. Something that I really don’t want to do. But I know that I would also have to add about 200 lexical entries to show verbs without any prepositions attached, and I would guess that several of those might not even exist. I suspect it would also open up a larger range of meaning to words, phrases, and idioms, but then that would require readers to rely more on context to discern what they mean. Right now I am merely exploring whether some form of the concept is warranted, and if it is not, I won’t have to worry about it.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Towards defensibility of your ideas

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Alan Bunning wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I understand that you want to be as right as possible in what you are publishing, but practically speaking, as right as possible = to the limits of current (mediaeval) scholarship. If you want to use different scholarship, you'll need to prove it (or at least lay it out theoretically) then use it.
Yes, that is my only motivation. If I did want to use different scholarship, someone would need to provide a better theory. But I don’t think that will be me. If you or someone thinks there is some merit to pursuing it, I would be willing to help. But I would much rather have people who are more informed on this topic, to simply give me valid reasons why it won’t work. That would satisfy my intellectual curiosity, and then I can get on to better things.
Revisionist scholarship is always an uphill battle. The best theoretical approach would probably be the Critical Theory approach. Inviting people to give you valid reasons why not doesn't seem to be getting you very far. You need at least to have some theoretical development of your ideas before the counter-claims will make sense.

The rush to publish (rush as both "the anticipation of fame", and "the feeling the time is fleeting") and the desire / striving for excellence that you feel, need to be balanced. Scholarship is a "work in progress" across many generations. Even though you feel it could be better, even though it is not as "perfect" as you see it could be, what you have done already is a great achievement and will be of benefit to others who are interested in things about early manuscripts. You could release the collation of texts that you have done, and then work on the details of what is being discussed here over the next few years. Perhaps the best way to do that would be in a research programme under competent academic supervision. Even what you have gotten here, from recognised scholars, is enough to give you an initial direction.

What did you have now? A Bachelor of Divinity / Theology? I'm sure you can find a college according to your denomination bent or within computing science, which will allow you to prepare a research Master's to both test and develop your ideas. Whether that would be developed in information technology, linguistics or Greek would have to be negotiated.

Following that, if you were to do a revision of your analysis and collation then that would have some theoretical basis and at least consistency.

Even with your (rather) limited Greek, your remarkable ability to deal with large amounts of information could lead to sine interesting findings simply by sensible data manipulation and sound use of information technology.

Without that commitment of resources (primarily time), you need to develop a series of checkable methods to work through things on a case by case basis as best you could do yourself.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Alan Bunning wrote:That is true. I would have to weigh any remaining evidence for splitting against its usefulness. And it would be hard to answer that question without actually undertaking the task. I suspect that it might be able to eliminate over 1000 lexical entries of compound verbs and that would be something helpful. But I won’t know if that is actually the case without attempting to look at every word on a case by case basis. Something that I really don’t want to do. But I know that I would also have to add about 200 lexical entries to show verbs without any prepositions attached, and I would guess that several of those might not even exist. I suspect it would also open up a larger range of meaning to words, phrases, and idioms, but then that would require readers to rely more on context to discern what they mean. Right now I am merely exploring whether some form of the concept is warranted, and if it is not, I won’t have to worry about it.
I expect that within a few years, people won’t talk about New Testament Greek words anymore, but rather about meanings. Words are (just) the form, what matters is meanings. At present, people are talking about the importance of context. In this case “context” means finding which of the words meanings fits a context.

To extend from the example that we looked at, let’s look at other instances of παρα- where it means cause someone to do something. What is caused, may be the actual verb, or it may be supplied from the context (especially from the object of the verb).

I have taeken one of the meanings of the verbs in these cases:
  • παραγγέλλω An announcement for someone else – a command (extra connotation from context) coming from someone else to someone else. [αγγέλλω to announce NT]
  • παραδειγματίζω To expose someone else to be mocked publicly (publicly = by others), to disgrace them (in the eyes of otters) [δειγματίζω to mock, make an example of disgrace NT]
  • παραζηλόω To provoke someone else to jealousy [ζηλόω perhaps need to look outside the New Testament ]
  • παραθαρσύνω To make someone else bold, give someone else courage [θαρσύνω perhaps look outside the New Testament]
  • παραινέω To urge someone else (to??) [αινέω to praise perhaps need to look outside the New Testament]
  • παρακαλέω To instill someone with courage or cheer, comfort, encourage, cheer up (cause someone else to be ….) [Etymology may not be helpful here]
  • παρακαλύπτω Cause something to be covered
  • παραλύω to paralyze (v.) To cause to be weak, or feeble [May need to look outside the New Testament for the sense, or Etymology may no9t be useful]
  • παραπικραίνω to embitter (v.) To cause someone else to make someone else?? to be bitter [πικραίνω to cause to become bitter, to make bitter NT]
  • παραπολλυμι To cause someone else to be destroyed [απολλυμι to cause or experience destruction NT]
  • παράσημος -ον To have been marked [Perhaps look outside the New Testament]
  • παρασκευάζω To cause something to be ready [Perhaps look outside the New Testament]
  • παρατείνω To cause to be long [Need to look outside the New Testament]
  • παρατίθημι To cause someone else to eat or to look after something (rather than doing it oneself [Meaning from context]
  • παρενοχλέω To cause trouble for someone [ενοχλέω to trouble / annoy NT]
  • παρέχω To provide = cause to have [έχω to have NT]
  • παρίστημι To present = cause to stand [ίστημι to stand NT]
  • παροξύνω To cause to be stimulated [οξύνω Perhaps need to look outside the New Testament]
  • παροργίζω To make someone angry [οργίζω to be angry NT]
  • παροτρύνω To stir up someone’s emotions [οτρύνω Perhaps need to look outside the New Testament]
Looking at vocabulary with the constraints of the corpus-of-New-Testament-texts-only blinkers on, things look about on par for relative advantage. But if we consider the wider vocabulary, constructing words like this would be an advantage.

Giving all the παρα-s a quick look over, it seems that there are perhaps 4 meaning of παρα including this one. The others are perhaps; “wrongly”, “get something from someone”, “be physically beside”. The polysemy of compound verbs seems to come from the prefixed element being taken in the different senses.

If you like we could work through all the Pi words together. (Para, Peri, Pro and Pros). I working in the Pi’s now for something else, so if your hitching a ride, it’s on my way anyway.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by RandallButh »

Alan egrapsen
I don’t have an exact number, but from observing the works of the “concordant method”, it appears to me to be a fact. Only a handful of exceptions have been offered here, but there seems to be many more (i.e. a majority), particularly involving direction of motion, where they can be separated with no loss of meaning.
RandallButh wrote:There is certainly loss of meaning. τοῦτο κατέλαβον.
What meaning is lost that is not covered by the various meanings of “κατα” or when used idiomatically?
Whatever is the 'concordant method'? If it means always using the same English translation for the same pieces of a word, then it would be performing the "etymological fallacy." There was a bible translation done along those lines 40-60 years and it would not be recommended.

In English, a person cannot "deduce" or "reduce" a horse from a hilltop to a barn, even though 'duce' came from Latin ducere "lead".
A person may 'deduce a conclusion,' or 'reduce an amount,' but with a horse a person must return it or lead it back to the barn.
We may want people to oversee a process, but without an OVERSIGHT, we don't want them to OVERLOOK anything.

τοῦτο κατέλαβον "i have taken possession."
τοῦτο κατελαβόμην. "I have understood this, comprehended." It an idiomatically developed and restricted use from [λαβεῖν] λαβέσθαι.
καταλαβέσθαι is not (take, receive)+(throughout, down from, toward, during, in detail, accordingly), applied willy nilly.
In modern English one may 'apprehend a person' and one may 'comprehend an idea'. But we do not prehend anything.

So I am trying to ἀποκριθῆναι, but without your κριθῆναι.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Alan Bunning wrote:That is true. I would have to weigh any remaining evidence for splitting against its usefulness. And it would be hard to answer that question without actually undertaking the task. I suspect that it might be able to eliminate over 1000 lexical entries of compound verbs and that would be something helpful. But I won’t know if that is actually the case without attempting to look at every word on a case by case basis. Something that I really don’t want to do. But I know that I would also have to add about 200 lexical entries to show verbs without any prepositions attached, and I would guess that several of those might not even exist. I suspect it would also open up a larger range of meaning to words, phrases, and idioms, but then that would require readers to rely more on context to discern what they mean. Right now I am merely exploring whether some form of the concept is warranted, and if it is not, I won’t have to worry about it.
If it's your own project, you can do it however you want. In fact, having it be your project gives you precisely the freedom to do it your own way. Certainly, studying the basic theory has a number of benefirs and one of them is to shortcut the inevitable mistake-making process and thereby to avoid making common mistakes and conceptual dead ends, but sometimes there is just no substitute for working through a lot of examples and seeing how things work out.

I think what you'll find is that there are too many idiosyncrasies in the lexical meanings for the compositional approach to pay off (Randall is strongly hinting at that). Indeed, even with separated words as in English's "give up" != "give" + "up", having lots of separate lexical entries of some sort is necessary, and here the English particles are more word-like than the Greek verbal prefixes.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Alan Bunning »

RandallButh wrote:Whatever is the 'concordant method'? If it means always using the same English translation for the same pieces of a word, then it would be performing the "etymological fallacy." There was a bible translation done along those lines 40-60 years and it would not be recommended.
Not exactly. For those who are interested there is this (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... _Index.htm) where the author keeps word divisions the same, but then assigns meaning, not on a word basis, but on a component basis. But it still commits the etymological fallacy. From it though, you can kind of get a sense that it works more often than it doesn’t. And there is also this (http://www.concordant.org/).
RandallButh wrote:In English, a person cannot "deduce" or "reduce" a horse from a hilltop to a barn, even though 'duce' came from Latin ducere "lead".
A person may 'deduce a conclusion,' or 'reduce an amount,' but with a horse a person must return it or lead it back to the barn.
We may want people to oversee a process, but without an OVERSIGHT, we don't want them to OVERLOOK anything.
Yes, all of that has already been discussed and words that cannot be split because the meaning would change, would not be split.
RandallButh wrote:τοῦτο κατέλαβον "i have taken possession."
τοῦτο κατελαβόμην. "I have understood this, comprehended." It an idiomatically developed and restricted use from [λαβεῖν] λαβέσθαι.
καταλαβέσθαι is not (take, receive)+(throughout, down from, toward, during, in detail, accordingly), applied willy nilly.
All those meanings appear to be covered to me when idioms are included. But it does illustrate the greater need for context that would be expected of readers. That is not necessarily a bad thing and we do it all the time quite naturally. Let me illustrate with a hastily made up example. In a dead-language called Bizzaro, we find the rare word “brownanimal”. Through careful analysis of context through many manuscripts, Bauer has concluded that it can refer to:
a. A lion (cf. Hect. 4, 23 “the brownanimal with its lofty mane attacked the gazelle”)
b. A cow (cf. Ger. 3:7 “the brownanimal was seen chewing its cud among the herd”)
(Later another Phd candidate finds another obscure example on “brownanimal” in a newly discovered manuscript and writes his thesis on how it can also refer to a camel (“the arab was seen riding his brownanimal in the desert” ). :-)

But then someone proposes that those words could be split apart as “brown animal” without a loss of meaning. What? Clearly this would result in a loss of meaning because it would refer to any brown animal, not just a lion, cow, and camel that have been proven by scholars. Now the readers may think it applies to any brown animal, and they might conclude that it is the wrong one!

I see this type of thing going on with the concordant method, and am surprised that most of the time it still seems to work, taking idioms into account. Consider, for example, “take down” in English.

You can “take down” your Christmas lights.
You can “take down” what someone said as a dictation.
You can “take down” an opponent in a wrestling match.
You can “take down” your enemy (i.e. kill).

Some are literal, some are figurative, some are idiomatic. How is anybody supposed to know which meaning applies? The context always matters.
RandallButh wrote:In modern English one may 'apprehend a person' and one may 'comprehend an idea'. But we do not prehend anything.
Yes, that is the problem I alluded to where I think I would find several examples where the prefix-free verb would not otherwise exist. In those cases, those words could not be split.
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by RandallButh »

Well, besides the morphological and syntactic restrictions already mentioned, which to be honest should be enough, there are two closely related civilizations and literatures that have chosen against separation, the Greek and German.
where the author keeps word divisions the same, but then assigns meaning, not on a word basis, but on a component basis
I would stay away from 'concordant' stuff as a kind of 'pseudo-scholastic' endeavor. It will always have examples that sound good, and will ALWAYS miss details that are part of the language. It will be forever out of step with reality. That is why students are warned about the 'etymological fallacy.'
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Alan Bunning »

RandallButh wrote:Well, besides the morphological and syntactic restrictions already mentioned, which to be honest should be enough, there are two closely related civilizations and literatures that have chosen against separation, the Greek and German.
where the author keeps word divisions the same, but then assigns meaning, not on a word basis, but on a component basis
I would stay away from 'concordant' stuff as a kind of 'pseudo-scholastic' endeavor. It will always have examples that sound good, and will ALWAYS miss details that are part of the language. It will be forever out of step with reality. That is why students are warned about the 'etymological fallacy.'
No disagreement here. But that is not what I proposed. I find that it is useful, however, for quickly finding examples where it would work, and where it doesn't work.
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Towards defensibility of your ideas

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Hughes wrote:The rush to publish (rush as both "the anticipation of fame", and "the feeling the time is fleeting") and the desire / striving for excellence that you feel, need to be balanced.
I have no such needs and there is nothing here I am looking to publish. I can’t seem to get across that I am not wanting to do any work here. I have merely made some observations about the language and would just like some explanations as to why doing such a thing would be invalid. Apparently, playing the devil’s advocate here, means you are the devil!
Scholarship is a "work in progress" across many generations. Even though you feel it could be better, even though it is not as "perfect" as you see it could be, what you have done already is a great achievement and will be of benefit to others who are interested in things about early manuscripts. You could release the collation of texts that you have done, and then work on the details of what is being discussed here over the next few years.
As I pointed out, I have had these nagging questions for 14 years. I have seen what the concordant people have done, and already know why it is invalid. But if there is any merit for why words should be divided differently, I would like to know that now. For once I add parsings to all of those texts (which I plan to do this summer), it would be a monumental mess to have to change later.
The best theoretical approach would probably be the Critical Theory approach. Inviting people to give you valid reasons why not doesn't seem to be getting you very far.
Well, actually many of you have helped me immensely and I would like to thank you for that. Some of the answers I have been getting are giving me some relief that no additional splittings should be necessary. I would still like some arguments/perspective for the remaining pro-splitting arguments. Particularly #6 which you led me onto from Moule.
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”