From: yochanan bitan (ButhFam@compuserve.com)
Date: Sun Dec 12 1999 - 11:52:45 EST
RE: Case
i really don't understand why the following is an issue
but clearing it would help the field.
goolde wrote of an 'eight case system':
>>it is a strong step in the right direction
miller wrote:
>Where as the advocates of the five-case system are saying that there are:
>five basic cases for eight major grammatical functions: (1) nominative;
>(2a) pure genitive; (2b) ablative; (3a) pure dative; (3b) locative; (3c)
>instrumental; (4) accusative; and (5) vocative. Although the terminology
is
>slightly different, they seem to be saying the same thing.
i, and most, would agree with miller, in general, where his statement shows
the direct link between 5 'case' and 8 'function' advocates. he is right,
thinking clearly, and acting the role of a
mesiths kai katalasswn scolas.
but there is also something between the lines, unintended by miller, that
is not fair or true to the five case system:
linking/limiting 5-case people to "8 major functions" would shackle
supporters of the 'five-case' system with the same limitations (a.k.a.
mistakes) of the the so-called 'eight function' system. it is not fair to
say that they are saying the same thing with different words. one is
thinking linguistically, naturally, the other is thinking etymologically.
but etymology and meaning are not the same thing. not in syntax not in
lexicon.
i and some advocates of five-case systems refer to five morphological cases
because they reflect reality: objective surface structure, which was
perceptible to the users of the language.
but '5-case' greeks would not need to agree that there are "eight" major
functions.
my goodness no. don't limit us or the greek language.
"exegetes" should be on this linguistic side because it is
(1) not artificial, or made with human hands
(2) it is simpler with 5, and
(3) it is functionally and exegetically richer in the sense of getting
students to think far beyond a mere eight semantic roles.
the five cases allow one to refer to twenty or thirty or to one hundred
functions as the case may be. and without an intermediate mixing-up of
form/function.
five formal categories mapped to "xx" functions/(semantic roles) is about
the only theory defensible within major schools of linguistic theory.
from any kind of structural, generative, functional linguistic perspective,
the number of cases in koine greek is a non-issue.
there simply aren't eight koine, classical or byzantine greek cases.
e.g: goodwin, greek grammar, #1042 [from a philological perspective] is
pretty clear:
"Greek is descended from a language [NB: a pre-Greek indoeuropean
something--RB] which had eight cases, --an ablative, a locative, and an
instrumental, beside the five found in Greek [NB: Greek has five--RB]. The
functions of the ablative were absorbed chiefly by the genitive, partly by
the dative; those of the instrumental and locative chiefly by the dative."
not bad. it keeps etymology, form and function separate, in their proper
domain. [i would actually encourage telling students that the Greek
five-case system descended from an earlier indoeuropean eight-case system.
it makes a helpful footnote.]
why not leave them there?
why divorce greek from linguistics and human language in order to scramble
abstract ideas of form and function for students?
to reapply the opening quote: 'eight cases' "is a STRONG step in the WRONG
direction".
it leads students to think in ways that greeks themselves could not think
in, and also to think in ways that linguists cannot think. "8" ends up a
"lose/lose" option.
errwsqe
randall buth
--- 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 - 15:40:49 EDT