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Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Secondary sources in biblical studies are laced with outdated theory about language.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.
"αἴκα" (The Spartan Ephors' reply to Philip II of Macedon) is even better than "nuts" (General Anthony McAuliffe reply to General Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz).