[B-Greek] doubleplusunprettyful (was FOBOS in Eph 5-6
lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 4 21:25:16 EDT 2010
<I am assuming at least some of you have taken
a look at R.A. Hoyle's paper.>
Indeed I have. For those who have not, here is an excerpt,
more or less chosen at random. From page 536:
"I posit that unmarked relationships between elements
in a text are understood
in the light of the prototoypical relationships of those
elements within the open scenario.
It is clear that contraexpectation relationships
are not prototypical, hence the fact that
contraexpectation is frequently marked in Participle clusters,
whereas almost all other
semantic relationships are grammatically and lexically unmarked.:
And here is an except from page 44 of George Orwell's 1984:
"times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs
unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling."
Now, let me ask you a question. Which of these prose
specimens is easier to understand? Which is better written?
Which corresponds more closely to something in the real world?
<I do indeed believe that "grammaticalize" is a barbarism.>
Interesting choice of a word, but I can think of none
better. And Carl said this in the context of DEFENDING
Linguistics. These are not isolated examples. "Count
word?" Count is a verb or maybe a noun. To use it
as an adjective is first to destroy language in order
to make it more clear. What you are asking us to do,
you and Steve R and maybe Carl, is this: In order to
understand one language (Greek) which is beautiful and
by definition non-barbaric, we are asked to learn another
one (Linguisticspeak) which is barbaric and doubleplusunprettyful.
That's too harsh. We all want the same thing here.
If it will help me understand Greek any better, I will
do ANYTHING. I'll stand on my head. There has to be
something to do this stuff. Entire Departments of Linguistics
cannot be wrong. Bear with me, Elizabeth and Steve, and Yancy
and Iver. I'm trying to bellyfeel this stuff the best I can.
--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:
From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] FOBOS in Eph 5-6
To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 6:04 PM
I am assuming at least some of you have taken a look at R.A. Hoyle's paper.
The title of the scenario here might be "obedience out of fear" the identity of the greek words used is not very important. A scenario involves a script with players in different roles and so forth. The demons obey Jesus out of fear. The fear and the obedience may not be explicitly mentioned in the same context since a scenario is a prototype constructed out of numerous events which share a number of significant features.
Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.
Mark 1:27 KAI EQAMBHQHSAN hAPANTES hWSTE SUZHTEIN PROS hEAUTOUS LEGONTAS· TI ESTIN TOUTO; DIDACH KAINH KAT᾿ EXOUSIAN· KAI TOIS PNEUMASI TOIS AKAQARTOIS EPITASSEI, KAI hUPAKOUOUSIN AUTWi.
In the remarkable story of the Gerasene demoniac the fear is evident in the request
29 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔκραξαν λέγοντες· τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ; ἦλθες ὧδε πρὸ καιροῦ βασανίσαι ἡμᾶς; 30 ἦν δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκομένη. 31 οἱ δὲ δαίμονες παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν λέγοντες· εἰ ἐκβάλλεις ἡμᾶς, ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων.
Matt. 8:29 KAI IDOU EKRAXAN LEGONTES· TI hHMIN KAI SOI, hUIE TOU QEOU; HLQES hWDE PRO KAIROU BASANISAI hHMAS; 30 HN DE MAKRAN AP᾿ AUTWN AGELH COIRWN POLLWN BOSKOMENH. 31 hOI DE DAIMONES PAREKALOUN AUTON LEGONTES· EI EKBALLEIS hHMAS, APOSTEILON hHMAS EIS THN AGELHN TWN COIRWN.
The Ephesians scenario Eph. 5:21 Ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ is not narative but a command embedded in paraenesis. However, it shares some significant features with the "obedience out of fear" scenario in the narative.
On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
>> This is one time where I think FOBOS has the meaning of "reverential awe" with a
>> little "fear/terror" alongside of it. My reasoning is that any approach with
>> regards to God/Christ/Holy Spirit as a Christian is to be with confidence
>> (Hebrews uses "boldness"; I John 4:18 uses "no fear in love). Yet, at the same
>> time, there is in the back of my mind that since I am dealing with God, there is
>> to be a little more than reverential awe/respect because of who He is (TREMOS).
>> En Xristwi,
>> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> Thank you Bryant,
> I think this could be understood in terms of scenario theory in Cognitive Linguistics . FOBOS with a genitive or dative of QEOS, KURIOS, or CRISTOS where the agent-experiencer of FOBOS is Christian is a different "semantic situation" or scenario than the demons fear (FRISSOUSIN) of QEOS, KURIOS, or CRISTOS. Perhaps one could argue that the scenario is the same but the sense is different because the agent-experiencer slot is filled in one case by hostile (unqualified) agent.
> James 2:19 σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός, καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν.
> James 2:19 SU PISTEUEIS hOTI hEIS ESTIN hO QEOS, KALWS POIEIS· KAI TA DAIMONIA PISTEUOUSIN KAI FRISSOUSIN.
> Elizabeth Kline
>  Appendix Section 2. Scenarios and New Testament Greek ..................527
> Scenarios, Discourse, and Translation
> The scenario theory of Cognitive Linguistics, its relevance for analysing New Testament Greek and modern Parkari texts, and its implications for translation theory
> Richard A. Hoyle
>> Eph. 6:5 Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ, 6 μὴ κατ᾿ ὀφθαλμοδουλίαν ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι ἀλλ᾿ ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς, 7 μετ᾿ εὐνοίας δουλεύοντες ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις,
>> Eph. 6:5 hOI DOULOI, hUPAKOUETE TOIS KATA SARKA KURIOIS META FOBOU KAI TROMOU EN hAPLOTHTI THS KARDIAS hUMWN hWS TWi CRISTWi, 6 MH KAT᾿ OFQALMODOULIAN hWS ANQRWPARESKOI ALL᾿ hWS DOULOI CRISTOU POIOUNTES TO QELHMA TOU QEOU EK YUCHS, 7 MET᾿ EUNOIAS DOULEUONTES hWS TWi KURIWi KAI OUK ANQRWPOIS,
>> Eph. 5:21 Ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ,
>> Eph. 5:21 hUPOTASSOMENOI ALLHLOIS EN FOBWi CRISTOU,
>> FOBOS is used several times in this context, I am wondering why we should water down the force of it in one place and not in the others. In other words, why should EN FOBWi CRISTOU be watered down to "reverential respect" when we have META FOBOU KAI TROMOU ... hWS TWi CRISTWi. This assumes that hWS TWi CRISTWi looks backwards, someone might argue that it looks forwards.
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the B-Greek