From: CWestf5155@aol.com
Date: Wed Jan 17 2001 - 13:40:06 EST
In a message dated 01/16/2001 12:37:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
a_b_thomas@yahoo.com writes:
> Part of Cindy's response include...
>
> > While some communication is written or recorded with
> > a deictic center related
> > to recipients that are receiving it at a later time,
> > in Jn. 5:24, the
> > intended recipients are present, so I don't think
> > that the deictic center can
> > be located in the way you are describing. It is not
> > really what is meant by
> > 'the context of the utterance', which is what deixis
> > is about.
>
>
> Cindy:
>
> Would you expand on this a bit. After reading Mark's
> suggested translation, I did feel that it was
> addressed to those present at the time of utterance.
>
It is very probable that I didn't understand all of what he was saying. But
my issue was with what I perceived to be his definition of the 'contextually
developed deictic center' as NOT being related to the time of speaking to
those present. This is what I'm addressing, and it rather redefines deictic
center, which I think should be avoided.
I think that he might be saying that the 'contextually developed deictic
center' could be relative to the time of hearing (reception perhaps) and
believing. But I'm not entirely confident that I understand.
> I think your suggestion that this is true in an
> omnitemporal sense is correct, but what are the
> grammatical clues to suggest this?
>
Right. There are no grammatical clues to suggest this. The issue
grammatically besides whether the perfect includes the past in its meaning
is: who is the referrent of the formal construction hO TON LOGON MOU AKOUWN
KAI PISTEUWN... If only there were a little PAS then we'd have closure. So
this becomes much like the studies on the contextual meaning of EKKLHSIA or
FILEW, etc.
We use pragmatics all the time to attempt to arrive at the "true" meaning of
words and statements. This is why Relevance Theory types say that grammar
only provides a blueprint for meaning. They say, "Hearers use contextual
information in their search for relevance", and while I don't want to defend
their theories here, I can buy this statement, and apply it to Jn 5:24.
In this case the 'context' used would be the Gospel of John and could be
other basic Christian doctrine that I assume is shared by the author and
recipients.
I 'assume' that I share at least part of the same information that the writer
and the recipients shared as far as the general relationship for all
believers of hearing and believing to salvation--they have all the gospel of
John, and I assume (rightly or wrongly) that they have had teaching that
associates hearing and believing with all believers' salvation. So, without
any noticeable struggle, I assume that this is meant to apply to all
believers, past present and future.
We use pragmatics all the time in interpreting that Bible and everyday
language.
1. Blue is a color.
2. Betty's face is blue.
3. The sky is blue.
English grammar tells you nothing about which is 'omnitemporal' versus
anchored in time. I'll bet you have an opinion that (1) is 'omnitemporal',
(2) is anchored in time, and you aren't too sure about (3) and need more
context.
I'll bet that you are also aware that (1) could be false (the referent of
"Blue" could be my dog or the dog in the song) and Betty could have a chronic
heart condition.
Cindy Westfall
PhD student, University of Surrey at Roehampton
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:47 EDT