From: Steven Lo Vullo (doulos@merr.com)
Date: Sun Dec 23 2001 - 23:21:06 EST
<x-flowed>
On Sunday, December 23, 2001, at 07:45 PM, Harry W. Jones wrote:
> Dear Carlton,Ted,Carl,Steven and All,
>
> I believe that some on the list have completely misunderstood
> what I've been pointing out by my questions. So I will try to explain
> more clearly.
>
> I simply asked if anyone knew of any of the main
> definitions of Thayer that were incorrect. I was not talking about any
> of Thayer's interpretations of bibical passages. That's a matter of
> interpretation and not definition. I was not talking about any of
> Thayer's
> notes that were related to interpretation. But notes related to
> definition
> would be included of course. So I then posted my question. If I got no
> response I would have to conclude that no one knew of any incorrect
> definitions. But a number did respond but gave no examples of
> incorrect definitions in Thayer.
>
> I think that the results of my questions indicate very clearly that
> Thayer is still very a good lexicon.
Harry:
Non sequitur. The responses (or more accurately, lack of responses) to
your inquiry prove nor indicate any such thing. When you say in an
earlier post, "no one can point to any of the main definitions of Thayer
and say that they are incorrect," I think you are resting falsely
assured, assuming this is an issue of ABILITY. First of all, many, if
not most of us haven't used Thayer's on a regular basis for years (and a
younger generation perhaps never) and so any errors we may have noted in
the past are not likely to come readily to mind now. Second, I doubt
that many (if any) have had the inclination (even if they still have
Thayer's on the shelf) to spend time looking at comparisons with other
lexicons or scouring through Thayer's looking for examples. So the
question isn't one of ability ("can"), but of interest and familiarity.
And when you said "no response to my post at all would have been
helpful," this too seems to assume that a large number of people out
there have been racking their minds and scouring their Thayer's for
examples and just couldn't come up with any. I think this assumption is
unwarranted. As Carlton Winbury said, it is an argument (or in this case
assurance) from silence. If you asked a group of people who do not read
the New York Times on a regular basis, or have never read it, if they
thought its reporting was accurate, and asked for examples of inaccurate
reporting, and few responded simply because they were not very familiar
with it (and not inclined to investigate it), would you assume on the
basis of this silence that the reporting was indeed accurate? It may or
may not be, but this exercise would prove nothing either way.
=============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
---
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
</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:14 EDT