[B-Greek] "result" expressed by adverbial participles?

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Apr 20 23:09:15 EDT 2010


On Apr 20, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Dr. Don Wilkins wrote:

> Thanks, Elizabeth. It looks like we have common ground here, at least. To me, BDF is not particularly difficult, nor even long as a reference grammar. ATR's historical Grammar and the multi-volume set originally under Moulton are more impressive and challenging. And I agree with Carl Conrad in preferring Smyth's Grammar (just 784 pp. including indices etc.) overall. So I hope you're right about Hoyle's paper having about one-tenth the number of obscure terms found in BDF. Should be a snap, unless I need to read the entire work (847 pp.). But if you need explanations for any old-school terms, feel free to ask any old codger on b-greek. I'm sure someone will be happy to respond. We're even happy to hear suggestions on how to improve old-school meta language (i.e. improve, not just change). How about the same for terms like "grammaticalize" and "prenuclear"? Thanks for the hint about the latter, BTW; in an ordinary context I might have thought you were talking about pre-World War 2 history.

My statements about BDF were hyperbolic, tongue in cheek, intentionally. The problem with BDF is not the terminology which is shared with the other standard reference works, it is the perspective from which the questions are addressed. In other words, the framework behind BDF, MHT, ATR is different, very very different, from .

I think there is a connection between working within a framework, actually adopting the metaphor  and remembering the terms. I think a decade or so ago I had figured out most of the language used in BDF, ATR, MHT, etc. but since I don't use that framework, it is a pain to translate the ideas into the framework I am using. So the issue is really at a deeper level than just terminology. If you don't think the framework is productive for your particular project, the work of translating the meatphore of Old School Grammar into text linguistics doesn't seem worth the effort. I notice however that a number of NT linguists adopt the terms from Old School for tagging the various semantic roles. This can actually lead to confusion since the linguists are rarely using the Old School terms in the same way that Old School did. So it is not suprizing that someone who has internalized the traditional framework will have a tough time learning to think like Levinsohn, Hoyle, Buth (?).  Learning a few terms isn't going to get you there, text linguistics in its various forms applys a rather different set of rules from a different perspective. That is why we call it a "frame work". 

Elizabeth Kline
 






More information about the B-Greek mailing list