[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Skewing the Greek Verb
- To: B-Greek list <b-greek-digest@virginia.edu>
- Subject: Skewing the Greek Verb
- From: Clayton Bartholomew <c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 21:06:58 +0000
- Organization: AT&T
What in the world is abnormal about a K. Greek verb(al) functioning as a subject in a
clause? What Rule does it violate?
Beekman, Callow and Kopesec (Page 50, The Semantic Structure of Written
Communication, 5th rev., SIL Dallas, 1981) suggest that a Greek verb(al) functioning as
subject in a clause is an example of semantic *skewing*. I've been told this is an old
book which no one reads any more.
I decided to take a look in Richard A. Young's rather newish *Intermediate NT Greek* to
see how he handled *skewing*. Young includes in his definition of semantic skewing a
broad class of phenomena: lexical polysemy (multiple meanings of words), idioms, and
syntax skewing (e.g., verb(al) as subject of a clause).
Let's pass over the lexical question and idioms and focus on the syntax issue.
A Greek verb(al) functioning as the subject in a clause is statistically less common than
some other constructions. So what?! Calling this skewing implies that there is something
strange about it. There is nothing abnormal about verb(al)s functioning as substantives,
is there?
This kind of talk sounds like prescriptive grammar being applied from an alien language
system. A set of rules applied to K. Greek from some other source than K. Greek. Simply
because a certain sample of Greek syntax may look odd to a non-native language
speaker does not imply that there is in fact anything *skewed* about it.
I am not claiming that semantic skewing does not happen. I think that regional Idioms
and Hebrew Idioms provide us plenty of NT Greek examples of semantic skewing.
However, I think it is a serious mistake to instill into the minds of intermediate Greek
students that each NT Greek *grammatical form* has as fixed assigned function and that
any variance from that function is abnormal, i.e., and example of *skewing*.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
Postscript:
Some one is undoubtedly going to say: But Clay, you just don't understand how the word
*skewing* is being used. Sorry folks, I've already cover that one. In both the Beekman . . .
law firm and R.J. Young, the notion *abnormal* appears to be a central component in the
semantic value of *skewing*.
*******************************************
Follow-Ups: