1 Corinthians 12:4-5 δὲ vs καὶ

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
PhillipLebsack
Posts: 63
Joined: January 17th, 2018, 10:31 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 12:4-5 δὲ vs καὶ

Post by PhillipLebsack » February 6th, 2018, 9:15 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
February 6th, 2018, 1:58 pm
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
February 6th, 2018, 12:59 pm

Better to focus on learning to read greek.
The better one learns to understand Greek, the better one understands what Steven and others are doing in DA.
I agree... I feel like this is essential to learning to read Greek...

I can't say that i'm an authority on this, but my philosophy is that no translation can ever do full justice to a text, because interpretation is involved and there will subsequently always be some meaning lost... From studying Mr. Runge's "introduction" to DA so far, I feel bad I didn't pick up earlier. It really does make sense of a lot of things, and it makes reasonable sense in general. Some of the concepts, like 'forward-pointing' devices I already innately knew were there. I knew that there were more to the 'connectives' because why would there be two words that mean exactly the same thing? The concept of semantic constraints, though I understand is theory, I feel is good linguistics and is really enlightening.

I'll keep an open mind. But, at the very least, I feel that it is something that should be studied and kept in perspective.
0 x



RandallButh
Posts: 967
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 12:4-5 δὲ vs καὶ

Post by RandallButh » February 7th, 2018, 3:45 am

In principle when reading any language when running across two potential structures for a particular situation, always ask what "A" would mean and what "B" would mean, assuming both are referring to the same general situation.
Learn to read within the framework of the language system itself.
In other words, meaning and emphasis and packaging are part of the original language system and are not determined by translation into another language. καί and δέ do not "mean, emphasize, or package" the same thing even if English translators choose the same English words for their translations.

Practically, that means that students can learn a lot by asking questions like, "what would this mean if the aorist infinitive were replaced by a continuative infinitive, or vice versa?" Practicing to read "A" by comparing with "B" will eventually bring a big payoff in sensitive reading skills. That is what people are doing who write about "discourse analysis".

PS: Unfortunately, some people have cluttered the literature with unteneable and misleading theories (at a time when the field was too weak to call them out).
That clutter is what some of the 'aspect-only' people did with discourse analysis in the 90's. I feel sorry for Stirling:
I invested untold hours trying to figure out what S.E. Porter and J. Reed were up to in the 1990s. Wasn't an investment with much yield.

Stirling is correct and students, expecially beginning students, should be steered away from aspect-only "discourse" studies. For example, the Greek perfect was a semantic signal (somewhat complex because of having features that overlap with aorists, statives, and imperfectives), it was not a pragmatic discourse signal of heightened proximity/foreground or any other weakly defined subjectivity. Suggesting the perfect as heightened gobblygook, as the aspect-only people did, mispredicted the reading of texts and simply left students and the practioners themselves in a cloud of confusion.

So yes, read, read, read, Greek, communicate in Greek to become sensitive to the choices being made, and yes, read Steve Runge's book--it is a responsible synthesis of features and signals in the Greek language.

PPS:
Steve, I don't know if you will see this note, but I saw a copy of your book yesterday in the Bible Society shop across from the NW corner of the Old City, Jerusalem. κῦδος !
0 x

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 410
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: 1 Corinthians 12:4-5 δὲ vs καὶ

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » February 7th, 2018, 4:53 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
February 6th, 2018, 8:24 pm
... but if we keep reading, the very next δὲ introduces text which is analyzed by the editor[1] as parenthetical which means δὲ introduces subordination. On the other hand the next καὶ introduces text that moves the story forward but it doesn't introduce a new scene.

Real text is often more complex than the rules of any framework can handle.
If your last sentence means that the text you analyze doesn't "obey the rules", I remind that according your analysis it fits within the framework about which Steve told Levinsohn nowadays holds. But your purpose is a bit unclear to me.

The problem in understanding discourse, at least for those who are accustomed by rule-based old-fashioned grammar and who wait for the "this is what the original text really says" experience is that there are no "rules", as was already said, like there are in grammar - like "this always means that" or "this is always inflected like this" or "this word is never in this position with that kinds of words" or something like that. There are only tendencies and vague explanations. But this doesn't mean that explanations are wrong or not worth understanding.
0 x

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 806
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: 1 Corinthians 12:4-5 δὲ vs καὶ

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » February 7th, 2018, 11:01 am

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
February 7th, 2018, 4:53 am

If your last sentence means that the text you analyze doesn't "obey the rules", I remind that according your analysis it fits within the framework about which Steve told Levinsohn nowadays holds. But your purpose is a bit unclear to me.
Eeli,

Yes I agree, it wasn't well worded. I didn't put in the (substantial) effort required to figure out what Runge's post was saying. Levinsohn's ( Discourse Features 2000) treatment καὶ δὲ covers a lot of territory. The Thucydides sample introduces some contrast which demonstrates a need to approach this topic with care. I say this because students who arrive here after several years in the grammar translation courses often have absorbed a mindset that doesn't work in textlinguistics, which is not just an advanced course in greek grammar.

I have experience this sort of disconnect before on b-greek. I remember talking about transformation grammar and Chomsky with Micheal Palmer in the late 90s. I was working with transformation grammar that was actually pre-Chomsky and adopted by some major players in mid 20th century bible translation. Palmer was working with a different framework. This is the feeling I get from reading other people talking about Levinsohn. We are not on the same wavelength.
Last edited by Stirling Bartholomew on February 7th, 2018, 11:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1321
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: 1 Corinthians 12:4-5 δὲ vs καὶ

Post by Barry Hofstetter » February 7th, 2018, 11:02 am

PhillipLebsack wrote:
February 6th, 2018, 9:15 pm


I agree... I feel like this is essential to learning to read Greek...

I can't say that i'm an authority on this, but my philosophy is that no translation can ever do full justice to a text, because interpretation is involved and there will subsequently always be some meaning lost... From studying Mr. Runge's "introduction" to DA so far, I feel bad I didn't pick up earlier. It really does make sense of a lot of things, and it makes reasonable sense in general. Some of the concepts, like 'forward-pointing' devices I already innately knew were there. I knew that there were more to the 'connectives' because why would there be two words that mean exactly the same thing? The concept of semantic constraints, though I understand is theory, I feel is good linguistics and is really enlightening.

I'll keep an open mind. But, at the very least, I feel that it is something that should be studied and kept in perspective.
People have been learning and understanding Greek for quite a few centuries prior to the invention of Discourse Analysis, so no, it's not essential. My experience has been that the model is helpful in making explicit certain syntactical arrangements and constructions which are simply felt on a practically subliminal level by fluent users of the language. More than once while reading Runge I remember thinking to myself, "I never quite thought of it that way, but yeah..." Studies about the langauge, using whatever model or approach, are always best understood on the foundation of knowledge of the language.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: 1 Corinthians 12:4-5 δὲ vs καὶ

Post by Jonathan Robie » February 7th, 2018, 4:46 pm

I'm reading these chapters again now, thanks to this thread. It's worth re-reading as your language skills improve.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

paorear
Posts: 18
Joined: January 2nd, 2012, 2:16 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 12:4-5 δὲ vs καὶ

Post by paorear » February 8th, 2018, 3:35 pm

My take, which follows nicely with Steve Runge's report on Levinsohn now preferring the term "point" is that current software applications help us to understand this. Think of PowerPoint slides:
  • και is used sort of like two slides, one is with "Some Title" and the other is "Some Title (cont.)" - e.g. primarily *coordinating*
  • δε is more like the bullet points on a given slide, where the bullet points can elaborate on the topic of the slide, whether that be coordinating, contrasting or subordinating.
0 x
Paul O'Rear

Post Reply