>A certain author opens up his newish intermediate greek
>grammar published by the Big Z, with a discussion of method.
>On Page five he has a heading *Structural Priority* where he
>describes his methods for examining the syntax of the NT
>Greek. His method can be summarized by the formula
>*structure proceeds semantics.* What he seems to mean by
>this cryptic use of these terms is: *empirical investigation
>proceeds model building.* He then quotes a critic of
>Chomsky, who brands him as the arch-model builder with a
>scandalous disinterest in empirical investigation.
Clayton:
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.
No doubt certain grammatical/syntactic/semantic meanings
defy structural analysis for distinctiveness; and when that's
the case then you must go to another level of analysis in
determining what the author is trying to communicate with the
words and structure he chosen--our friend would not disagree,
I believe.
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.
While I can't speak for Beegleman (a.k.a. "The Scourge of the
TR"...its a private thing !!), I suspect he would say that such
grammatical model-building is, as are most "scientific" projects,
a circular endeavor, in which the data is analyzed, a model
proposed, further data analyzed in light of the model, the
model modified, etc., etc., etc.
I think you may have been reading more into the statement than
was intended--but lets not get into a discussion about authorial
intent vs reader response... (-:
That's my $.02 worth...for what its worth...
XAIREIN...
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************