MAubrey wrote:Not that I'm aware of. There's a lot that isn't done.
We are lucky to have synoptic parallels to see different ways of expressing the same thing. Beyond retellings of the same story, or alternative translations of the same text, discovering an idiomatically acceptable generalisation is not an easy skill for a learner to master. Early acquisition of a language, is characterised by beginning with language that refers to things in the learners' immediate vicinity, then extending those ideas into generalisations. Later they acquire an extended vocabulary and the grammatical and syntactic skills to use the language with subtlety, allowing them to express very specific meanings. We, who have acquired Greek in our teens (or later), have a great ability to understand the subtleties of complex words and expressions (so long as they conceptually map onto what is familiar), but are unable to readily euphemism, simplify or re-express things by rearranging semantic elements. Such inverted-house-of-cards attempts at periphrasis, can easily lead to our downfall. Such information as a study of specificity and vagueness might yield, would be valuable for both private understanding, pedagogy, discourse analysis and ultimately exegesis to be sure, but it seems to be more suitable as way of thinking, than as a set of easily definable "answers" to unposed taxonomical questions. Following on from it and underpinning it, there is the issue of adequacy. In most cases, nobody would need to specify anything about a ἐπίβλημα anyway that they need to put on anyway. What we read is building on the assumption that it is normal for someone to ἐπίβλημα ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. Those expected elements of the process are not so open to innovation as the elements that refer to something specifically are. From a behaviouralist point of view, we have skipped the process of habituation, and therefore don't share the same element of surprise that the added specification would bring to somebody, who had been.
MAubrey wrote:Maybe you could do it.
Identifying a need and seeing what could
be done, is part of the imaginative "one percent". Actually having the wherewithal to do something about the idea belongs to the perspirationally inflated much larger percentage. I don't flatter myself as being any better at sticking to a task than I am at sticking to a topic.