Beegleman, I assume, is our author's middle name.
You wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
I think this is simply a case of misunderstanding the point
that Beegleman (a.k.a. a certain Z author) was making. I
think his point (since he and I have discussed this repeatedly
over the years) is that when one is attempting to classify
syntactic-->semantic structure, one should start with the
structure (not "deep" structure or other such linguistic
"stuff", but just simply the order of the words and their
morphological/grammatical relationships) of the clause,
sentence, etc., before going on to other things. For example,
before deciding a participle is substantival, adjectival,
circumstantial, or any other category, one needs to begin to
ask structural questions first--does it have an article in
front of it?; does it have a noun in concord?; etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
If this is what Beegleman is saying then who would disagree
with it? I guess I was giving Beegleman benefit of the doubt
and assuming that he was saying something interesting about
epistemology.
Dale wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
The question you raise about the relationship between
empirical analysis and model-building is, I would point out,
not an appropriate topic for an *intermediate* grammar. Such
a grammar *assumes* the validity of the current state of
affairs in Greek grammar (or at least some current state of
affairs in Greek grammar; eg., Young assumes Porter's
conclusions; he doesn't try to prove them or build the model
himself in the book...though he may have tried privately or
elsewhere). For example, with ptcs, an *intermediate* (and
in fact, an advanced grammar like Blass-Debrunner-Funk as
well)
assumes the history of ideas and conclusions about how Greek
ptcs function. Such a history/conclusion *may* be wrong, but
such a grammar is not discussing/presenting that discussion.
{snip}
>>>>>>>>>>
Assuming *the validity of the current state of affairs in Greek
grammar* sounds rather counter productive. Is it not fair to
say that the only works on intermediate and advanced Greek
grammar worth reading are those who call into question *the
validity of the current state of affairs in Greek grammar.* A
case in point is Waltke and O'Connor on Hebrew Syntax. The
reason this book is worth reading, even for NT Greek students
is that serious questions are asked about *the validity of the
current state of affairs.* I spent months pondering their
treatment of the Hebrew verb system simply because they
were raising serious questions about *language*, and this is an
intermediate grammar text, is it not? Porter and Young are
doing the same thing, but on a smaller scale. My problem with
Porter is that he seems to be preoccupied with minutiae.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point