>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the Greek of the NT were a wholly different language from classical
Attic, then Denniston's great work--one of the truly great achievements in
classical Greek scholarship--might reasonably be ignored. In fact, however,
NT Koin is in continuity with classical Attic, for all its attenuation of
Attic morphology and syntactic simplification and innovation. Moreover, the
particles, even if some of their usage can be shown to have undergone
change from 5th and 4th century classical usage, are nevertheless vitally
important to the nuancing of expression even in the Koin, although perhaps
not to an equal degree in every writer in the NT.
For that reason I'd say it's worth consulting any time you want to
understand how a particle in a NT text nuances the tone of the statement.
{snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carl's response exposes a bad habit I have fallen into of viewing particles as
a kind of *noise* in Koine, which can be ignored without much loss. This habit
is born out of a fallacy which takes the form: *If it doesn't translate into
English, it isn't important.* Knowing that this is a fallacy does not insure that
you will not fall into this pattern out of plain laziness.
On the subject of classical grammars, I have no problem with consulting
them. H.W. Smyth is the most used volume in my entire library. Smyth has
answered more questions for me than all the rest of my grammars combined.
I think I will hang on to Denniston and learn to use it.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point