Rod's proposal makes sense in itself, but personally, I find disturbing the
NATURE of the attack on Wallace's "Grammer." I have some objections of my
own to some things in the grammar, particularly the multiplication of
explanatory categories and questionable terminology for some of the new
categories. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the "debate" suggested here
has as its purpose the exposure of deliberate distortion of grammatical
facts in order to promote a particular docrine or reject another. And it
appears to be also a reason for reviving the thread on John 8:58 to which
Rod refers, the demise of which appears to me to be not much lamented. My
recollection of that thread is that it became a repetitive and interminable
duologue over doctrine more than over text. I would not like to see this
"debate" here; I think that there's far too much substance in Wallace's
grammar to make it the subject of group evaluation here. My question about
such a discussion is: CUI BONO? Who would really benefit from it?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/