[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: What is a Greek Sentence?

At 7:32 PM +0000 6/12/97, Clayton Bartholomew wrote in response to my
recent comments on Greek sentences and clauses:

>Are you saying here. . . [SNIP]. . . that K. Greek sentences are recursive
>but >clauses are not?

No. This is definitely NOT what I am saying.

I am saying that clauses in hellenistic Greek (as in virtually all of the
world's languages) can be recursive. This allows for some very complex
sentence structure since sentences are made up of clauses. Hellenistic
Greek allowed for a higher level of complexity in such recursive structures
than do many other languages because it had abundant devices for
eliminating potential ambiguity and increasing cohesion (morphological case
marking, various levels of pronouns, conjunctions for connecting finite
clauses, participles and infinitives for varying clause structure, etc.).

>I think that I have located one major source of confusion (my own) on the
>>subject of sentences in K. Greek. After reading Micheal's post I pulled
>out >Stanely E. Porter (Idioms of the Greek New Testament, Sheffield,
>second >edition, 1995) and read his chapters on clauses and his definition
>of
>clauses in the glossary.
>
>It appears that my working definition of a clause is eccentric. (Please
>hold >your applause, laughter, whatever.) My working definition of a
>clause included >the notion of recursion so that a *main clause*  attached
>to one or more >dependent clauses was considered to *include* the
>dependent clauses as part of >it's structure. This does not seem to be the
>way that Porter uses the term >clause. Porter appears to view dependent
>clauses as *connected to* but not >*part of* the main clause.

Whether you see a dependent clause as a part of the clause in which it is
embedded is a matter of perspective. Through recursion, dependent clauses
DO have a function in the main clause in which they are embedded, and in
that sense are parts of that clause. On the other hand, a dependent clause
is a fully functioning clause in its own right (with certain qualification,
say in the case of infinitival clauses and some participial clauses), so
they can be looked at as at least to some extent independent of the clauses
which contain them. Clearly, though, they DO have a function within the
clause which contains them, so they are--at least on some level of
analysis--part of that clause.

>If this is the case then my problem of distinguishing a K. Greek sentence
>from >a K. Greek clause might hinge on revising my working definition of
>clause to >bring it into accord with common usage.

Porter is working within the framework of Systemic Functional Grammar
(first proposed by Halliday). While this framework may have much to commend
it (it promises a great deal for the analysis of texts within their larger
discourse setting and their socio-linguistic setting), you should not take
his comments as truely representative of what the majority of linguists
think, since Systemic Functional Grammar is only one among many schools of
thought in modern linguistics. In fact it is so different from most others
that trying to compare it with more widely used models to decide which is
'best' is like comparing elephants to bananas. (Which is 'best' depends on
the purpose for which you want to use it.) [I don't want to get a long
discussion of the merits or lack of merits of various schools of
linguistics started, but those who want more information on Systemic
Functional Grammar might consult Rod Decker (a member of this list). I hope
that's okay with you Rod!]

Still, even within Systemic Functional Grammar, dependent clauses are
viewed as carrying (performing) particular functions within the
higher-level clause in which they are included. Porter's definition of the
clause in the glossary of _Idioms of the Greek New Testament_ allows for
this. It is not necessary to read it as saying that dependent clauses are
not part of the clauses which contain them. The definition of 'dependent
clause' on page 230 does not explicitly say that dependent clauses are part
of the main clauses which contain them, but it does not rule this out
either. Whether he sees them as 'part of' the main clause or not, he
clearly does see them as performing a function within, or in relationship
to the main clause.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer				   mwpalmer@earthlink.net
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College

Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
http://home.earthlink.net/~mwpalmer/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
References: