καὶ τὰ λοιπά
Posted: April 23rd, 2016, 2:57 pm
Some things probably need to be discussed without disrupting the thread where they were first brought up. I am creating this thread to discuss them here.
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3675
Stephen Hughes wrote:Perhaps you should re-name this sub-forum "learner's" forum. The learner's ability to understand concepts in English is not tied to their ability to understand the target language (here Greek). What is the "level" of understanding (of English) that a beginner (studying Greek) can understand? Some beginners thrive on being able to understand and grapple with ideas and concepts beyond the frustration and strictures that are imposed by their level of Greek. Engaging with the language at an advanced level in a point of interest can also allow them to set general goals for future mastery and understanding of Greek. Building and working with the theoretical understanding of the language is an important skill to develop. In a traditional model of education access to theory is dependent on mastery of the language. I think there is an unhealthy exclusiveness in that. We need to open the doors to knowledge of Greek at any level it can be attained in an egalitarian and enlightened spirit of inclusivity. If this is a forum restricted to learning and mastering Greek, without understanding it deeply, that could be stated clearly. Calling it beginners' and restricting discussion to a simple level can be seen as perpetuating an exclusivist and hierarchically arranged knowledge structure that requires people who want to know Greek to follow a prescribed path to knowledge. There are too few people studying Greek and many of those that do learn Greek do so only at a superficial level. Integrating higher-order questioning and thinking into discussions is generally a desirable thing.Jonathan Robie wrote:Request: in the beginner's forum, can we please aim our answers at the level of the person asking the question? Some of these explanations go way beyond what I would expect a beginner to understand. There are probably simpler ways to answer his question.
Jonathan, I just don't believe that your response would be meaningful to a "beginner" in Greek (I'm not even sure that I understand it myself, but I need to read through it again -- and maybe a third time. You have achieved one thing: you have strengthened my conviction that this is not a discussion that belongs in the Beginners Forum. I would add, for what it's worth, that the verb ὑπάρχειν is one of those verbs of which Humpty Dumpty said, "They've a temper, some of them."Jonathan Robie wrote:This is a little amusing.
I just spent some time trying to construct an answer that I thought more suitable for the beginner's forum:
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... 817#p24817
At the same time, Carl is suggesting that it's not a beginner level question. I suspect that may depend on how you answer it. To me, Rijksbaron's explanations of things like this are reasonably accessible, especially if you throw in a few concrete examples. Take a look at what I did and see if you agree or not.
I think this is very much a question we need to be able to answer for beginners if we let them read Greek texts. Participles are everywhere. But I think there is such a thing as a beginner-level explanation.
I think there might be a development from Ancient to Koine Greek. Anything that becomes widespread has probably taken on a life of its own.participles function in the ancient Greek sentence
It seems to be a feature of desciption, rather than dialogue.the participle is the work-horse of ancient Greek discourse.
Jonathan Robie wrote:At the same time, Carl is suggesting that it's not a beginner level question. I suspect that may depend on how you answer it. To me, Rijksbaron's explanations of things like this are reasonably accessible, especially if you throw in a few concrete examples. Take a look at what I did and see if you agree or not.
How can a stative verb complete its action? By not coninuing in the state, perhaps. But here it is negated. Is the negation a negation of the state or of the completion. My ignoring the type of verb it is, you have confused things in the explanation.Wisdom of Solomon 2:2 wrote:
ὅτι αὐτοσχεδίως ἐγεννήθημεν, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο ἐσόμεθα ὡς οὐχ ὑπάρξαντες · ὅτι καπνὸς ἡ πνοὴ ἐν ρισὶν ἡμῶν, καὶ ὁ λόγος σπινθὴρ ἐν κινήσει καρδίας ἡμῶν
ἐσόμεθα is the main verb, in future time - "we shall be". ὑπάρξαντες is an aorist participle, the verb's action is completed at the time of the main verb. Instead of "being", it's talking about "had been" - but it's "had been" at the future time indicated by ἐσόμεθα: "we shall be as though we had never existed".
There is no time-relation to be found in the examples that you have given from the LXX. They are adjectival examples to explain your point about the time-relatedness of adverbal participlas.Stephen Hughes wrote:If there is no actual relatedness between two verbs, but it is actually just part of the abbreviated style of writing, then by applying either of those understandings that were given in the quotes, one will arrive at conclusions based on the questions asked, rather than what might be in the Greek. Alternatively, in the case of (middle-passive, stative and intransitive) participles that tell us something about the doer of the action, but not necessarily what the doer did to have an effect on the finite verb, Perkins' questions about "time-ness" don't make so much sense.
A beginners level explanation for participles reduces to a way to fudge an understanding of them by having a few clever ways to translate them. The explanations of how to really understand them in terms of the Greek grammar is not easy.I think this is very much a question we need to be able to answer for beginners if we let them read Greek texts. Participles are everywhere. But I think there is such a thing as a beginner-level explanation.