[b-hebrew] Ezek 3:26

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 20:10:04 EDT 2013


Jerry:


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Karl,
>
>
>
>>
>
>
> You said: "You have done what Ruth would say is confuse action with
> function.
>
>
>
> "I already a few times covered how to recognize the difference using the
> word 'swing' in English, now I’ll give an example from koiné Greek:
>
>
>
> "The action in παρακαλειν is to call aside. The function is why there is a
> calling aside, and we find that it is used for instruction, scolding,
> encouragement, upbraiding, and it’s the context that indicates for which
> reason the person was called aside. The translator that translates
> παρακαλειν into English has a problem—English doesn’t have the concept of
> calling aside for all those purposes. If the translator merely translates
> the action, that makes no sense in English. So he ends up translating the
> function, the why the action was taken.
>
>
>
> "If, on the other hand, the intent of handling the text is merely to read
> the text with the intent as far as possible 'to get inside the head' of an
> ancient Greek, the reader will recognize that παρακαλειν does NOT mean to
> instruct, to scold, to encourage, to upbraid, rather it’s an action that is
> used to facilitate all these contexts and listing the action is often the
> shorthand of referring to the reason for the action."
>
>
>
> Okay, Karl, here's a number of points in response.
>
>
>
> (1) If Ruth is lurking, hopefully she can clarify, but this distinction
> you attribute to her between action and function is not one that she made.
> That was your formulation in your attempt to capture her thought; she
> never confirmed this, and probably because it didn't really express what
> she was trying to say.  She made a distinction between form and function,
> and your distinction between action and function is not the same thing.
>

Of course it’s not the same thing! That’s why Ruth made a point of it.

>
>
> (2) Your suggestion that I made a confusion between action and function is
> not really correct.  When you use these terms you are the one who is
> making the confusion, and the confusion at least borders on confusing
> linguistic and extralinguistic categories.
>

If you read the whole interchange between me and Ruth, I had not known that
there is specific definitions for the terms “form” and ”function” within
linguistics. So when I first tried to explain what I am do in lexicography,
I used the terms in different ways that linguists do. Ruth corrected me on
that.

As a result, I coined a term “action” to emphasize what I think is
important to recognize how a lexeme is used, and the way I have done so
since I was young and have found useful in all languages I’ve studied.


>   Furthermore, "action" is not the term to use when trying to when trying
> to capture the "main" idea of a particular lexeme, because it assumes the
> lexeme is either a verb or a noun that names an action.  Your distinction
> does not cover nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc.
>

While you are right that it mainly affects verbs and nouns, it also fits
adjectives, adverbs, etc.

>
>
> (3) The proper linguistic distinction to make is not between action and
> function, but rather between some kind of original "core" or "root" meaning
> and function/usage in its occurrences in various contexts.  What you are
> trying to argue is that the original "core" meaning is somehow present in
> all occurrences of the lexeme.
>

?????


>   The problem you have here is that there is not a trained linguist in
> the entire universe who would hold to that opinion.
>

This paragraph is a logical fallacy, namely the appeal to popularity.

>
>
> (4) Your example of παρακαλειν is a case in point.  In fact,
> interestingly, you have picked up on an example that is used in linguistic
> textbooks to disprove the very point you are trying to make.  To be sure,
> the verb is made up of two Greek words that, if translated literally, would
> mean to "call aside" or "call beside or alongside."  And I believe there
> are a few places in the NT where that meaning might be present.  But in
> the grand majority of the verb's occurrences, that meaning is not present.
> It simply means, in various contexts, to "ask," "plead," "comfort," "beg,"
> "encourage," etc.  There is no problem for the translators, because, if
> you were to "get inside the head of an ancient Greek," you would not find
> them thinking that the word they were using or reading meant to "call
> aside."  For example, in Matt 8:31, the demons παρακαλειν Jesus to send
> them into the herd of pigs.  They are not calling Jesus aside.  In Matt
> 8:34, the people παρακαλειν Jesus to leave their region.  They are not
> calling Jesus aside.  Lazarus is not "called aside" in Hades in Luke
> 16:25; he is simply comforted.  Rachel does not refuse to be "called
> aside" in Matt 2:18; rather, she refuses to be παρακαλειν comforted.  In
> Acts 19:31, the officials of the province do not send a message to Paul
> calling him aside, rather they "beg" (παρακαλειν) him not to venture into
> the theater.   And on and on in passage after passage.
>

This makes me think you have not read a word I’ve written. Or rather, you
have latched on to a word or phrase that is a trigger to your thinking, and
have not listened to the whole, rather just stopped listening to make your
argument.

>
>
> This is what Peter Cotterell and Max Turner say in their book, *Linguistics
> and Biblical Interpretation*:
>
>
>
> "However much *parakaleo* looks as though it should mean 'to call someone
> alongside to assist' (from *para* 'alongside' and *kaleo* 'to call')—and
> it did once have this sense—in the New Testament period it means simply 'to
> request', 'to encourage', or 'to cheer up'."
>
>
>
> It just isn't the case that every time an "ancient Greek" spoke, wrote,
> read, or heard *parakaleo*, that they were somehow thinking "to call
> aside."  I believe that meaning might have been present in some of the
> passages where *parakaleo* is perhaps used in the sense of "invite," but,
> for the grand majority of instances, that idea is not present, either in
> the text or in their thinking.
>
>
>
> Incidentally, Cotterell and Turner use this *parakaleo* example in a
> section where they are discussing the etymological fallacy.  I know in
> the past you have denied that you are committing this fallacy; but, in
> fact, your usage of *parakaleo* in support of your point is a textbook
> example of the fallacy.
>
>
>
> So your Greek example doesn't work for Greek; your English example doesn't
> work for English.  And there is no reason to believe it would be any
> different for Hebrew.
>

Your argument has missed the mark.

>
>
> Blessings,
>
>
>
> Jerry
>
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
> jshepherd53 at gmail.com
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130730/2d7f67a1/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list