Clayton, I find the use of the term "ontological" very confusing. In the
cause of descriptive syntactical analysis you draw in a philosophical
concept.
So here is where my question comes in. Is it fair to infer any
generalizations about usage? You did not address that question. Isn't your
so-called ontological meaning your term for what is simply syntactical
inference by earlier grammarians?
Let me take the nominative as an example. I think that one can plausibly
argue that all uses of the nominative relate to its function to name
something: subject of sentence, hanging nominative, nominative of address,
etc. Indeed, that accounts for the fact that the forms of the nominative
and the vocative in the plural coincide.
>
>It seems pernicious to burden the intermediate Greek
>student with the concept of *ontological meaning.* The
>notion of *ontological meaning* promotes confusion in
>syntax analysis because the student ends up with a Greek
>syntax information model which does not correspond with
>the actual structure of the Greek syntax.
Here is where I fall off the wagon again. If one infers from many
sykntactical examples that the genitive basically defines or gives source
fdrom which something comes (hence the terms genetive and ablative, drawn
from the so-called 8 case system), one can, meines erachtens, account for
every use of the genetive one comes across in syntactical contexts--and
doing so on the basis of the very kind of analysis you call for.
I do not think students find this pernicious at all, but helpful. Have you
ever tried to teach Greek without such generalizations? Es laeuft nicht.
>The student may [AND THEN AGAIN, MAY NOT. POTENTIALITY IS NOT AN ARGUEMENT!]
>picture the *actual functions* of the genitive in the Greek
>text as satellite nodes connected to a hub called the *basic
>genitive.* This picture is very misleading. The student
>burdened with this idea will want to ask the question *what is
>the basic meaning of the genitive* along with the question
>*how is the genitive used in this context.* The first question
>is only going to cause confusion [NOT NECESSARILY!] and the second
>question is
>the only one the counts for translation or exegesis. [I AGREE WITH THIS
>LAST; THOUGH I WOULD HOLD THAT THE FORMER CAN ACTUALLY AID THE LATTER
>ANALYTICAL TASK. CARL'S AND OTHERS MANY CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE AREA OF
>HISTORICAL LEXICOGRAPHY, SYNTAX, AND MORPHOLOGY ILLUSTRATE THE FACT THAT
>PURELY SYNCHRONIC ANALYSIS IS OFTEN FAULTY--AND INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE.]
>
>There are major scholars who have thought about this with
>great care and precision. James Barr, Moises Silva, J.P. Louw,
>etc.
The final paragraph names some good scholars. However, James Barr was
protesting against the false understanding of vocabulary in the TDNT, not
against syntactical categories. Scholars' names decide nothing for me;
texts do!
You raise very interesting issues of importance. And you correctly point to
two modes of analysis: linguistic theory and classroom teaching. I clearly
differ with in regard to the utility of generalization in the latter, agree
with you--though not with your question-begging terminology--in the former.
But keep this theoretical discussion going.
******************************************************
*Edgar Krentz, Prof. of New Testament *
* Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago *
* 1100 East 55th Street *
* CHICAGO IL 60615 *
* TEL.: 773-256-0752 FAX: 773-256-0782 *
* Office: ekrentz@lstc.edu OR HOME: emkrentz@mcs.com *
******************************************************