From: Rod Decker (rdecker@accunet.com)
Date: Wed Oct 25 1995 - 08:33:07 EDT
>What I still don't understand is whether to abandon the system I learned
>(afterall, I have to teach the aorist next week) or whether to let all this
>stuff come in by osmosis and work with an amalgam of linguistic systems. How
>are you all who are teaching Greek approaching this problem? Any thoughts or
...
>Karen Pitts
Sorry for the tardy response to this question. I use Mounce's textbook
which introduces verbs from an aspectual approach and distinguishes between
aspect (the primary significance of "tense forms" in his system) and time
(secondary in his system). [He almost got it right! :-) ] I follow his
presentation quite closely in first year, adding the technical terminology
of perfective/imperfective/stative as names of the aspects (Mounce uses, if
I remember right, undefined, durative, perfect) and also the note that
while some tenses are normally treated as a particular time by default
(e.g., aor is usually transl. past in first year), this is only for the
convenience of beginners and is not mandated by the form. I spend quite a
bit more time at the beginning of second year discussing temporal
implicature. That is also the point at which I have them read Silva's _God,
Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General
Linguistics_ for an intro to the use of linguistics in biblical studies.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT