>>>>>>>>
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*. . .
>>>>>>>>
By this I simply mean that these authors are not thinking
about language the way J.G. Machen did in the 1920's. They
are using a different language model than Machen did. The
current state of affairs, as I observe it, is that most recent
authors of Greek grammars have not broken out of the
language model that was current for Machen and Robertson.
Sure, they talk about semantics and the use linguistic
terminology and the sound very scientific and contemporary
and all that but the language model they are using has not
changed. The problem seems to be that those who are doing
some thinking about macro language structure are not
writing grammars. And those who are writing grammars are
not doing the thinking.
Porter and Young are perhaps exceptions to this. I am not
sure about Porter because I don't understand him well (Maybe
if I read Mari's thesis I will understand better). Young made a
daring effort to break the mold and I am willing to
congratulate him for that even though I don't care for his
language model. By contrast, the recent publications from Z
seem like variations on an old theme. I haven't had long
enough with this newish book to say for sure. Possibly I will
change my tune, but I doubt it.
Anyway, that is enough on this subject. I have some syntax
questions to ask which are more pertinent to b-greek.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point