>I am quite sure others will disagree, but I have taught beginning
>Greek quite a few times and I have never found the notion of a basic
>meaning (an inherent meaning) for the cases to be very helpful. I
>talk about their 'most common usages' rather than a basic meaning.
>I learned Greek from a teacher (and a textbook) which used the
>'basic meaning' approach and found it to be confusing and
misleading.
I also learned Greek grammar from a textbook which used the 'basic
meaning' approach. While in my second semester of grammar I did a
lot of preaching in area churches. I used my Greek tools in message
preparation. When I went to seminary and took syntax class and found
out all the other usages of the various Greek forms, I could only
think how much easier my sermon preparation would have been had I
known that there wasn't really a 'basic meaning' to those Greek
forms. I am sure I would not have committed as many fallacies as I
did! I remember scratching my head and wondering how certain Greek
forms fit with the 'basic meaning' I was taught.
(I defense of my Greek prof--he did introduce us to a Greek syntax
book at the end of the 2nd semester. But the limited time in
the syntax book and the influence from the grammar text still made us
think that there was a 'basic meaning.')
This is not to say that I am against what Edgar Krentz has said,
however. I think we need to see how language has developed by
synchronically and diachronically. But I like Michael Palmer's
approach in teaching a 'most common usages' rather than a 'basic
meaning' to beginning students.
Thanks for the good thoughts in this thread--I am enjoying it
thoroughly!
==============================================
Glenn L. Weaver Pastor, Grace Community Church
(612) 588-2291 1300 N. Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
--->http://www.netforward.com/poboxes/?gracecc
--->http://www.netforward.com/poboxes/?glweaver
--->http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6019
==============================================