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

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at verizon.net
Wed Apr 21 14:37:37 EDT 2010


Thanks for the clarification, though what you say doesn't bode well  
for the common ground I've been talking about. To have that, it would  
seem that NT scholars from either background do have to try to think  
like their opposites. So I'm not sure where that leaves us, except  
that I'm going to continue reading the recommended sources in your  
field.

Don Wilkins

On Apr 20, 2010, at 8:09 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:

>
> 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 (?).  Learn
>  ing 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
>
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek




More information about the B-Greek mailing list