From: Randy LEEDY (Rleedy@bju.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 21 1998 - 11:21:13 EST
A couple of off-list posts on this topic indicate a need for a little
clarification. One soul more sensitive than I noted that some of my
strong wording could well be offensive to some list members, and the
point is well taken. I was careful to keep from applying words like
"ludicrous" and "idiot" to the two particular posters most directly in
view, noting that their posts only raised that suspicion on the
surface and that the reality proved far otherwise. What I didn't
consider is that other posters, less sure of themselves, may become
gun-shy in reaction to such language. So I cheerfully acknowledge my
overstatement and hope that any offense it may have caused can be
forgiven. If necessary, just consider me the ludicrous idiot: even
that's a more flattering description than I really deserve when I
compare myself, as honestly as I know how, to my Lord Jesus and even
to other members of this list.
Along a similar line is another item, not yet called to my attention,
but which I note in re-reading: an implication that the people
responsible for the Gramcord data, in tagging a perfect-tense form of
MIMNHSKOMAI as passive rather than middle, are "misguided souls."
Carl's explanation that the tagging must reflect their consistent
treatment of deponents as passive when theta-passive forms exist must
be correct, and that approach doesn't deserve to be called misguided.
Apology #2 is thus in order.
Another off-list post raises the question of whether it might
sometimes be better NOT to inidicate why a question is being asked,
particularly in cases where those reasons are fraught with potential
theological controversy. Of course, this seems always to be the most
difficult area to regulate on B-Greek. Since I claim no special skill
or insight (or responsibility--and you may read that term in whichever
sense you want!) in this area, I won't comment at length on-list but
will rather just back down a bit further by admitting that sometimes
it may indeed be best not to tell why a question is being asked,
though I wonder whether even in such cases it might be wise to
introduce the question something like this: "For reasons that might
best be left unexplained, I'm wondering about such and such...." The
point, as it seems to me, is that someone considering how to respond
to a question will almost always want to know the background for the
question, and it would usually prove helpful if the writer would
consider that fact and supply this information up-front to the extent
that he deems advisable.
Sorry to drag out something that really wasn't such a big deal anyway.
****************************
In love to God and neighbor,
Randy Leedy
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC
RLeedy@bju.edu
****************************
--- 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 leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:11 EDT