From: Clwinbery@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 15:06:08 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/01 8:58:47 PM, cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net writes:
>First of all I would ask that we keep the issues of lexical semantics and
>the syntactic function of the case form distinct. The genitive case form
>of
>PANTWN hUMWN provides a syntactic structural link to THN hUPAKOHN. In
>other words the case tells us that THN hUPAKOHN is limited by PANTWN hUMWN.
>That IMHO, is the extent of the function of the case.
>
>Now we move on to lexical semantics. The noun THN hUPAKOHN is what is
>commonly called an action noun. When an action noun is limited by a genitive
>constituent it is popular among Greek grammarians to see it as a "deep
>structure" verb clause where the genitive serves either as the subject
>or
>the object of that deep structure clause. This is OK with me if you want
>to
>do things that way. However this issue is raised by the lexical semantics
>of
>the noun THN hUPAKOHN as an action verb collocated with PANTWN hUMWN.
>It is
>a problem raised by the lexical properties of these two constituents when
>the are linked together by the case form. It is not, IMHO, a function of
>the
>genitive case. (The obvious rebuttal here would be, "Why don' t we seen
>the
>accusative doing the same thing?").
>
>Having said all this, I will admit that in a recent bit of writing on this
>topic I did adopt a category called "genitives qualifying action verbs."
>This category is a hybrid because it mixes the lexical semantic properties
>of the the action verb and the qualifying substantive with the structural
>properties of the genitive case. It is this sort of hybrid that, IMHO,
>causes confusion.
>
>As for a second semester Greek class, I cannot help you. Never been there.
>
Thanks for this reply. I would respond by saying that I see the effort to
keep semantics (I use this in the sense of what each part of the language
[including order and relationships] adds to meaning) totally separate from
case [which is one part] as very confusing. In the syntax book we have a
statement at the beginning distinguishing accidence from syntax. We state
that context is very important in determining syntax. In fact the categories
are simply efforts to describe how the writer or speaker seeks to use the
language to convey meaning to the hearer/reader. Syntactical categories are
efforts at describing how the sender of the message uses the language. They
are not rules to determine meaning. I warn students against what I have seen
in some commentaries, "this is a genitive of apposition, therefore it means."
Such use of the categories is bogus and very confusing. So, I see syntax as
one part of semantics. I really do not see how it can be totally separate.
Now, my question is, does the effort to describe the writer's use of the
various features of the language help? I have found them so, if you avoid
memorizing a list of categories and focus on learning the language well
enough that you don't have to think about the categories when you see a piece
of the language. I seek to focus the student's attention on the descriptions
rather than the names of the categories for the descriptions are dependent on
studying the language in context. I agree with Carl that there has been too
much multiplying of categories. However, I don't see that it is enough to
tell the student that PANTWN hUMWN and is adnominal to THN hUPAKOHN. In this
context it tells who is obeying, a very important ingredient in the overal
semantics of the verse. If the student can see that, then eventually s/he can
forget about "subject genitive" and read the Greek with understanding. I
never ask students to memorize the category names. Every "syntax" exam is an
open book exam because I want to see how the student struggles with using the
information in the syntax book to make a meaningful translation.
The temptation to "preach" syntax is very strong, eg. what Virgil does with
the genitive case. You can only do that if you try and force lexical and
syntactic referents onto every piece of the language in which they occur in
absentia of the ability to see the whole chunk of the language in context. I
do not normally like English illustrations for aspects of Greek, but I could
use the example of the sentence, "The plane banks on the turn." The only
reason that I do not think that the pilot is trying to make a deposit in a
bank is because I know the language well enough to see the whole in context.
If this is what the semantic guru's are trying to do, I am all for it, but
its a bit late for me.
I have a few old students who read the Greek texts now like I read the
morning newspaper. They tell me that they can't remember the names of the
categories but have little trouble understanding the meaning of the text.
That's great.
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College
---
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 - 15:37:02 EDT