From: David L. Moore (dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Jul 06 1998 - 15:33:16 EDT
At 03:24 PM 7/5/98 +0000, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>Once again, David Moore's comments are cogent and well documented. I cannot
>fault him on his reasoning, but I do disagree with his conclusion.
>
>Perhaps it is outlandish, arrogant or merely silly for some one to call into
>question the conclusions of BAGD, but this is quite necessary if the goal is
>rethinking how lexical semantics functions. I am applying a principle called
>semantic minimalism, I cannot quote it clearly but it is something like this:
>"The best explanation of a semantic component is the one which adds the least
>information to the context." This has been stated better elsewhere, perhaps
>some one else would like to quote it.
Well, that explains how we came to different conclusions; Clayton's goal
was rethinking how lexical semantics functions, and mine was to clarify the
meaning of this passage of the NT. On minimalist approaches en general: we
had a discussion some time ago on b-greek that dealt with a proposed
minimalist or reductionist approach to grammatical taxonomy. I think the
consensus we finally reached was that, although simplification is
desireable when possible, it is better to remain with a more complex system
that can account adequately for all the phenomena than to pursue
simplification beyond that point.
>The difference between David Moore's conclusion and my hypothesis is how we
>carve up the semantic pie. I am saying that the APAGW has the SENSE, "lead
>away" and that the semantic component "where to?" is provided by the context
>(linguistic and situational). David is claiming that APAGW in some contexts
>includes the semantic component "where to?" I find this hard to accept
because
>APAGW is used with to many different "where to" variables for the APAGW
itself
>to carry this information.
>
>Let's assume APAGW does contain the semantic component "Where to", then
APAGW
>in Luke 13:15 would include the semantic component "to water" and in MK 14:53
>"to the high priest" and in Mk 14:44 "under guard" and in Mat 7:13 "to
>destruction" and in Mat 7:14 "to life" and on and on and on. It is quite
>incomprehensible to me that APAGW could have all of these meanings. I makes a
>lot more sense to apply the principle of semantic minimalism and conclude
that
>APAGW has the sense "Lead away" in all of these contexts and that the "where
>to" information is supplied by other means.
>
>It is also possible that APAGW includes the semantic component "where to" in
>some contexts and not in others. But unless some one points out to me a clear
>principle by which I can determine that APAGW in Mat. 7:13-14 is lacking the
>semantic component "where to" but APAGW in Acts 12:19 includes this
>component, then I will assume that this cannot be demonstrated in a
convincing
>manner.
Part of the matter is how words and concepts translate from one language
to another. If, for the Greek-speaking man on the street, APAGW, in the
contexts of Acts 12:19 and Luke 23:26 and the several passages from other
sources where APAGW is found unaccompanied and in this sense, included the
implication of being led away to execution, our translation must include
that implication. It seems to me that producing a translation that is not
misleading is of an order of importance above that of its being nice and
neat according to the rules of lexical semantics. To my mind, the real
question here is that if lexical semantics's purpose is the clarification
of meaning, why should we be at cross purposes. But that's not really a
question for b-greek, is it.
Regards,
David Moore
David L. Moore
Miami, Florida, USA
E-mail: dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:51 EDT