Reply interspersed...
>Beegleman, I assume, is our author's middle name.
It's his AOL handle (spelled incorrectly; he raises Beagles)...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>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.
>
He *may* have some other agenda; you'd have to ask him
directly. On the other hand, there are those who *would*
disagree that structure precedes semantics. One example would
be those who argue that the case a noun/adj is in is more
important than the fact that it has or doesn't have a preposition
in front of it, ie., the case determines the function, not
the preposition (I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just
happens to be the way some grammarians apparently go at it).
There are lots of other examples...
>
>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.
>
I would argue that an intermediate grammar is *not* the place
for such discussion; its a textbook for students to learn the
basics of Greek syntax. Having said that, that doesn't mean
that such a book can't hold a new or iconoclastic view of some
or all aspects of grammar. Such books are *assuming* a state
of affairs, namely their own or some new one. Young and Porter
*assume* Porter's view of the verb, they don't argue for it
(well, okay, Porter does at times). Brooks and Winbery assume
the 8 case system, Wallace assumes the 5 case system; Robertson's
Big Grammar *argues* for the 8 case system. Wallace's Syntax
presents some *new* ideas on the use/non-use of the article, but
he really doesn't *argue* the issues in detail there; he did in
his Thesis and Dissertation.
An analogy: In revising, correcting, updating, homographing the
current GRAMCORD GNT and the MorphBHS I had to make a decision
about what currently printed text to follow as my standard. For
the NT its (no-brainer) BAGD, for the BHS its alot trickier, but
I and Al Groves (the other editor) decided to go with Koehler-
Baumgartner-Stamm's Lexicon, in its English incarnation. For these
types of tools you must have a standard so that people can find
things, cross-reference things, etc. Now there are times when
I disagree with BAGD and KBS, but unless its a *clear* issue
(eg., the current printed BAGD follows NA25 and some of the names
have changed their spellings in the NA26/27) I simply don't
deviate from what's in the Lexicon (what I do is put an alternate
in to show other opinions). In my view, a Syntax book is the
same kind of tool; it must be based on some set of standards the
the student can go to *if* he wants to chase down any grammatical
*rule* further; but it shouldn't be a stand-alone ground-
breaking work.
This of course raises a problem for Greek Profs trying to select
books for Syntax courses. Should you go with a book which has
an approach at points that you might not agree with or which
present a new approach to some part of grammar, which may or may
not be a fad ?? Since there is *no* perfect syntax book [ie.,
I haven't written one yet... (-: I think you'll find that
*EVERY* Greek Prof is going to disagree with *EVERY* syntax book
at some point, unless you've written your own...which is
probably why they do !!], we are faced with making these kinds
of decisions every year.
With respect to Waltke-O'Connor, I'm not sure what it is; its
supposed to be a Syntax, but it clearly goes beyond those
bounds in my mind. Nevertheless, in spite of their discussion
of linguistics--which is in no way radical or involved in the
current controversies (for that you should check out the
discussions on the Hebrew verb on the bhebrew forum between
Vince DeCaen and others)--they end up with a very standard
treatment of the current concensus on Hebrew grammar...which is
not to say that Hebrew grammarians are happy about the current
state of affairs; they see the problems, but are at present
unsure as to what exactly to do about them.
To a certain extent, both Wallace and Waltke-O'Connor have
written a new genre of grammar book; they stand half-way
between the traditional syntax book and the grammar in that
they attempt to cover *every* options/alternate so that the
student can find how any and every syntactical situation
functions--unlike something like William's Hebrew Syntax, which
covers *just* the basics. I personally like both of these
works as a teacher because they are books that a student can
get comfortable with in a beginning syntax class and then grow
with as their exegetical skills increase and they ask more and
more detailed questions about the text (rather than having to
try to decipher the cryptograms of BDF and GKC).
BTW, I agree with you about the interesting nature of asking
the question about what comes first in trying to do grammar.
For example, to use a previous example; since Koine is
*clearly* in transition (some would say virtual chaos at times;
though I doubt that the native speakers felt that way), is it
correct to analyze the preposition before a noun first to
determine the function of the case (ie., does the prep limit
the possibilties of the case) or doesn't it matter at all.
Is PISTEUW followed by the dative or EN (or EPI) any different
in meaning, or are they all the same ?? Does in general the
Dative and EN (with EIS sometimes mixed in) mean the same thing
or are there areas where they don't overlap ? Or to use the
current discussion; does our understanding English (German,
French) influence the way we think about the Greek verbal
system to such an extent that we miss what the Greek speakers
were really doing/thinking/saying ?!?
Well that's more than enough from me on this topic...and I
hear the siren song of the MorphBHS and I must heed its
plantif call...I weiss nicht was soll es bedeuten, dass Ich
so traurig bin. Ein Maerchen aus alten Zeiten, das kommt mir
nicht aus dem Sinn...
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
***********************************************************************