From: Rod Decker (rdecker@inf.net)
Date: Sun Jun 09 1996 - 09:12:36 EDT
>sections). I am considering Young's Intermediate grammar. Has anyone used
>this grammar and care to comment on its usability for undergraduates? Or
I used Young for that purpose with good success this past year and would do
so again. It's well done and does reflect more recent linguistic material
(including the Fanning/Porter discussion of verbal aspect--though after
introducing the subject well he surprisingly doesn't incorporate it much in
the rest of the ch. on verbs--seems to fall back to an Aktionsart
approach).
If you want to combine that with a heavy reading-based, inductive text,
look at Wallace's _Graded Reader_ (Zondervan, 96). My 2d yr. curriculum
includes 2, 2-hr. courses: 1, 2-hr. = intermediate grammar and syntax
(Young); 1, 2-hr. course in reading, for which I used pre-pub. proofs of
Wallace's Reader this past year. It worked well and the two courses
supplemented each other nicely. Some students prefer the deductive approach
of Young, some the inductive approach of Wallace. Using both together gave
them a well-balanced perspective.
The other grammars you note I have not found very useful for classroom
purposes. The only other intermediate grammar that might be useful here
(also deductive) is Porter's _Idioms of the Gk NT_ (Sheffield, 2d ed.,
1991?). It doesn't have the exercises that Young does, but the content is
quite good.
Rod
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
_/Rodney J. Decker, Asst. Prof./NT Calvary Theol. Seminary\_
_/rdecker@inf.net Kansas City, MO\_
_/As of 7/96: rdecker@bbc.edu Baptist Bible Seminary (PA)\_
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:44 EDT