Are the Louw and Nida discussions available?

Re: Are the Louw and Nida discussions available?

Postby MAubrey » March 29th, 2014, 10:38 am

RandallButh wrote:Michael's critique should be taken as a hyperbole.

If I were talking about L&N the lexicon, Randall, then I wouldn't have made such a critique to begin with. L&N is very useful within the constraints you mentioned--I think that's an excellent summary! But I wasn't talking about the lexicon. I was talking about their brief monograph delineating semantic theory that Stephen was asking about. So there is no hyperbole in my words. That book is highly problematic on numerous levels.
Mike Aubrey
Canada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School
MAubrey
 
Posts: 634
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Are the Louw and Nida discussions available?

Postby Stephen Hughes » March 29th, 2014, 10:07 pm

MAubrey wrote:
RandallButh wrote:Michael's critique should be taken as a hyperbole.

If I were talking about L&N the lexicon, Randall, then I wouldn't have made such a critique to begin with. L&N is very useful within the constraints you mentioned--I think that's an excellent summary! But I wasn't talking about the lexicon. I was talking about their brief monograph delineating semantic theory that Stephen was asking about. So there is no hyperbole in my words. That book is highly problematic on numerous levels.

The confusion is probably my fault, I started asking about the Lexicon, but then changed to the other volume in the thread a few days later. Despite that there may be a little misunderstand of which one who is referring to in which comment when, the replies here have generally been very helpful.

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Secondary sources in biblical studies are laced with outdated theory about language. So one must develop a tolerance for this or not read the secondary literature. Academic linguistics is always spinning off new frameworks and biblical studies generally ignores these until they have been around for several decades or longer.

It is the same in linguistics for language teaching. What comes out as textbooks is always a bit behind. I take that as like the FDA, let's see whether it really works before popularising it.
- Mire sear stir ears art our players for are mourn Thor sore.
- Wart word sheer warned tore door tore more roar?
- Sheer word warned tore gore tore Bore stern, Ire sir pores.
- Mare Ire gore tore?
- Sure!
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: Effective vocabulary learning strategies

Postby wayland » October 18th, 2014, 8:05 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:Also on the topic of your advice...
MAubrey in Re: E.A. Sophocles wrote:the research questions that were viewed as important 100 years ago aren't the ones that you're interested in.

I wasn't actually aware that I had an area of interest when you wrote that. I've been thinking about it, and since many of my posts are dealing with vocabulary and especially teaching and learning vocab, perhaps it could be that I have an interest in that field.


Sounds somewhat similar to my field of interest. I've become specifically interested in easing the load of vocabulary learning (which is why I like the textbooks of both Mounce and Ward Powers, who include inflectional morphology for this purpose), and in the use of derivational morphology in easing this load.
--
Tim Nelson
B. Sc. (Computer Science), M. Div.
wayland
 
Posts: 3
Joined: October 17th, 2014, 11:04 pm

Previous

Return to Lexicons

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest