Farther along we'll know all about it
Farther along we'll understand why
So, cheer up my brothers, live in the sunshine
We'll understand this, all by and by
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm sorry that I have not expressed my ideas very clearly and you had to read them a few times over. I realise that I am not a good communicator.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I think that the expression of the meaning is itself an interpretation into either a Spatially, Temporally or Conceptually convenient (English) adverbial form. I think the Greek itself is not tied to one or the other. It is different from a simple statement of distance (ἀπὸ) μακρόθεν. I think that that sense is also a desire for what is better or what has been lost, like a simple from a distance (ἀπὸ) μακρόθεν and it is appropriate that it has been used with ἐπαγγελία, i.e. it also has an implied meaning of προσδέχεσθαι. I feel that the meaning "with a feeling of distance (and longing for something better)" sounds too bland with "at a distance"
... From those examples, it is clear to see that the possible sense of the Greek is not only spatial, but also temporal, as I first asserted / suggested. In addition, there is also an emotional feeling of the word. I hope you can understand me better by examples then my poor explanations..
Stephen Hughes wrote:I don't have much of a problem with metalanguage and linguistic concepts. I am a language teacher. Campbell and others are the ones putting the meat into the grinder. I just reheat and serve the pies to students. The helicopter and the parade analogy is more like a spring roll than a pie - full of wholesome ingredients but dressed up to a minimum. Okay as a side dish, but not as a meal (as I assume it was intended).
I don't think that the discussion about linguistics is part of the (overly) analytical way that the corpus of New Testament texts is usually treated, if that is what you are feeling.
I have only done a simple 4 years of classical Greek, and that is nothing compared with the 40 years of your research, reading, teaching et al., but even I (we) notice a really big difference between the way that texts are approached. I read Plato with H Tarrant, who later went and succeeded Godfrey Tanner, whom I only met briefly over dinner at a Byzantine studies confrence, where he mostly talked about social issues. Tarrant's usual response to our explanations about grammar was, "Ehh, well it might be, but you can't be too sure." (Or something to that effect). I read the Republic with Evans, who will be remembered (it seems) for his contribution to aspect, used to always ask, "Can you see the beauty in the Greek, boys?". I remember having lunch at his parents home, then spending the afternoon reading the section about Uylsses return, he was genuinely touched by the emotion and human beauty and pain of the moment when the Argus recognised his old master then dies.The reading in all cases almost completely lacked grammatical disection. The only places where the text was read slowly was when we were reading Sappho's Lesbian poetry, and when one lecture with a Scottish accent was trying to explain why Iambi were funny. Of course it is not bad to understand a text to the nth degree, but it is also good to appreciate it as a text and just read it..
Stephen Hughes wrote:I think that bringing linguistics into Greek is a good thing. My main point in all that is that the attitude to reading and understanding is quite different. I think that having alternative grammatical reference systems is a good thing.
In my other field of interest, Hieroglyphics, every grammar it seems has a different set of terminology and especially a different way of understanding the verb. But still, the text gets read and translated and it is useful for historians and researchers. In studying Coptic too, we were encouraged to diversify and look at grammar from as many of the modern schools as possible, or which seemed suitable. Developing grammatical flexibility and creativity was seen as a good thing.
Carl Conrad wrote:your message seemed to me to jump back and forth
Carl Conrad wrote:One of our recurrent complaints in discussions here is about Wallace's GGBB with its umpteen subcategories of usage that are based on how a Greek construction is translated into English rather than on any Greek speaker's or author's perception of distinction.
Carl Conrad wrote:the sort of things that have found dealt with in the more unusual commentaries such as Fraenkel's on Aeschylus' Agamemnon or Barrett's on Euripides' Hippolytus.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest