From: Edgar M. Krentz (emkrentz@mcs.com)
Date: Thu Aug 31 1995 - 13:54:35 EDT
Roy Millhouse asked some questions about the Greek case system:
>I was wondering about the reasons between some choosing an eight case system
>and others a five case. I know of the top that the eight case is more
>focused on usage and the five case on structure, but what makes one decide to
>go with one or the other?
As you will see below, I think pedagogical decisions underlie one's choice,
when one considers the level of linguistic knowledge of students.
>
>Along the same lines, do those using an eight case system start beginning
>students on it right away? It seems like it might be confusing to do so,
>since right away they would need to determine whether the form they are
>looking at is, say, a genitive or an ablative. But then, maybe students
>would learn better if they were concentrating on more than just memorizing
>forms?
Some begin at once, others introduce the eight case system later.
>
>It also seems that the eight case system is not a popular today (though I
>don't think Dr. Winbery has revised his _Syntax of NTG_, and its probably on
>everyone's shelf!). Is it dying out as, perhaps, the popularity of A. T.
>Robertson wanes?
>
>Where do the linguists stand on this? Is function more important in
>classification than form? Or, does form get preminence in a language that
>has such an easy breakdown?
One answer is that compartive linguists see the language in the light of
its antecedents. Here is a citation from a classic text (Carl Darling
Buck,_Comparitive Grammar of Greek and Latin._ Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1933 + later impressions, p.171, par. 228.):
"The parent speech had eight cases, the six that are known in Latin,
together with the locative and instrumental, whose names and uses are
familiar to students of Latin syntax.
"The dative and ablative plural had the same form, likewise the genitive
and ablative singular except in o-stems. The vocative plural had the same
form as the nominative except that the accent was sometimes different.
"In Latin the old ablative, locative, and instrumental are merged in the
ablative. The locative survives as a regular case in Oscan-Umbrian (e.g.
efsef terei 'in eo territorio'), but in Latin only in isolated forms like
_humei_, etc.
"In Greek the old genitive and ablate are merged in the genitive; the
dative, locative, and instrumental in the dative.
"a. Eight cases are preserved in Indo-Iranian; seven in Balto-Slavic (where
genetive and ablative are merged); seven in Oscan-Umbrian; six in Latin;
five in Greek (four in Modern Greek), where the dateive is obsolete in the
spoken language); four in Celtic and Germanic (as still in German); two
(;for the noun) in present English; one (for the noun) in French, Italian,
Spanish.
" ... The merging of two or more cases in one ... is known as case
syncretism ....
If interested, you might also look at L. R. Palmer, _The Greek Language_
(Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 180) pp. 266ff.--though his
discussion may be opaque, if you have not worked in historical linguistics.
Historical grammar lets us know that there were eight cases. There are
vestiges of some of these cases in unusual words. Greek XAMAI ("on the
ground") is often identified as a survival of the locative case.
When I teach beginning Greek, I teach the five case system. When students
are in advanced classes, I teach them that one can infer all the uses of
cases from the basic eight case system. What one teaches, and when, is a
matter of teaching strategy. If one understands the function of the
nominative case, then the so-called "hanging nominative" or the use of the
nominative as a vocative makes sense.
So where do linguists stand on this? Historical linguists (using a
diachronic method) understand how the usages of the five case system
reflect the earlier eight case system in the usage of Greek or Latin.
Descriptive structural linguists (using a synchronic analysis of language
in a given period or collection of texts, such as the Septuagint or the New
Testament, e.g. Nida) seek to describe the use of the language as it occurs
in these texts.
In both cases, the analysis also is based on charqcteristics of the
language in use at a particular time. In some respects the eight case
system is more useful for the study of Attic Greek and Greek dialects prior
to Alexander than it is for thke Greek of the Early Roman Empire.
Is the use of the eight case system losing out. Yes, in part (I suspect)
because fewer scholars of the New Testament read widely in claissical and
Koine Greek outside the biblical texts than was the case, e.g. with A. T.
Robertson or
Your question about the preeminence of form or function is unanswerale. In
teaching beginners the language, form takes priority. In analysis of
meaning, once forms are no longer a problem and sytax assumes more and more
importance to the learner, function becomes more significant. At least that
is one person's outcome from attempting to teach the language.
You pose some global questions; one can only give perspective answers, I fear.
Cordially, Ed Krentz
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Voice: 312-753-0752; FAX: 312-753-0782
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:26 EDT