Page 1 of 1

How does Smyth's grammar compare to Goodwin's?

Posted: April 17th, 2015, 9:46 am
by Stephen Hughes
More delvings into the 19th and early 20th century . . .

Smyth succeeded Goodwin at Harvard.

What are the general differences between the grammars of the two?

Am I right in assuming that there was no lineage from Hadley and Allen's to Goodwin's grammar?

Re: How does Smyth's grammar compare to Goodwin's?

Posted: April 17th, 2015, 10:13 am
by cwconrad
Stephen Hughes wrote:More delvings into the 19th and early 20th century . . .

Smyth succeeded Goodwin at Harvard.

What are the general differences between the grammars of the two?

Am I right in assuming that there was no lineage from Hadley and Allen's to Goodwin's grammar?
I think that Mike Aubrey has probably done more careful study of the history of Greek grammatical reference works, so he may have something more useful to say on the subject. I shall offer no more than a couple more-or-less "obvious" comments:
(1) Smyth's exposition of phonology, morphology, syntax, principles of word-formation, and concise listing of major Greek verbs may not present the "last word" to be said on any particular matter of Greek grammar, but for English-speaking readers there is really no substitute;
(2) One extraordinary virtue of Smyth's grammatical expositions is that his versions of Greek constructions are almost always both idiomatic English and helpful in clarifying the point of usage under discussion.
I might add what should also be obvious to anyone who has consulted Smyth: the focus is on Classical Attic; while it is helpful with Homer and with Biblical Koine, it will not suffice as the sole reference grammar in those areas.