Re: Lk 16:13 (cf 3:23); mng of NOMIZW

From: Jonathan Robie (jwrobie@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Dec 29 1997 - 10:31:27 EST


At 12:41 PM 12/27/97 EST, Paul S. Dixon wrote:

>I was just comparing Luke's usage of NOMIZW in Luke and Acts. According
>to the way he uses NOMIZW it seems the meaning denotes erroneous
>supposition or thinking, not just supposition or thinking.

I've seen this methodology used several times before, e.g. in the AGAMOS
thread, and I have some concerns. I think that it is a mistake to give a
word the attributes of the context in which it is found; to understand the
meaning of the word itself, you have to figure out what it contributes to
the context, not what the rest of the context contributes.
 
The fact that the word is used largely in contexts where erroneous thinking
is involved does NOT necessarily imply that the word itself denotes
erroneous thinking. If you look up "thought" in the NASB, most cases
involve assumptions that were not true, e.g:

John 11:13 (NASU) Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that
He was speaking of literal sleep.

However, it is also used once where it does not involve an erroneous
assumption:

Mark 5:28 (NASU) For she thought, "If I just touch His garments, I will get
well."

I think that most English speakers would agree that "thought" can be used
for circumstances where the assumption was erroneous, but also for
circumstances where the assumption is correct. Personally, I think that
"thought" may imply uncertainty as to the truth of the assumption, and that
the rest of the context generally states clearly whether the assumption was
true. This is a gut feeling, and nothing more.

I felt the same way about the AGAMOS thread; a tally of whether the people
called AGAMOS have previously been married does not really tell us whether
the word itself conveys these meanings. In English, the word "single" can
be used to describe either, and a tally of the circumstances of those
called "single" would not really tell us the meaning of the word itself -
for that, you have to carefully examine the meaning the word adds to the
context for each use, and the fact that it is *sometimes* used for those
previously married says that "not previously married" is not an
uncancellable meaning of the word.

Perhaps some of our linguists can tell us how the pros determine the
semantics of words?

Jonathan
___________________________________________________________________________

Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com

Little Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine
Little Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons
B-Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek/archives



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:42 EDT