Clarification on "affected" and "unaffected" meanings

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Post Reply
WAnderson
Posts: 52
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 5:18 pm

Clarification on "affected" and "unaffected" meanings

Post by WAnderson » March 15th, 2017, 4:59 pm

I've read several references and commentaries that make mention of a word's (usually a verb's) "unaffected" meaning, or its "affected" meaning. Could someone please explain these terms, just so I can be clear on what is meant. Thanks

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2612
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Clarification on "affected" and "unaffected" meanings

Post by Stephen Carlson » March 15th, 2017, 5:08 pm

It's not actually a common usage. A particular example (or two) would be very helpful.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 677
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Clarification on "affected" and "unaffected" meanings

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » March 15th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:It's not actually a common usage. A particular example (or two) would be very helpful.

That's D. Wallace. See GGBB page 514.

a google search[1]: greek verb unaffected meaning affected pulled up GGBB p514.

[1] "how you get there depends on where you’re at" Zabriskie Point, Michelangelo Antonioni

https://www.zinzin.com/observations/201 ... -youre-at/
C. Stirling Bartholomew

WAnderson
Posts: 52
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 5:18 pm

Re: Clarification on "affected" and "unaffected" meanings

Post by WAnderson » March 15th, 2017, 6:37 pm

Sorry, I thought the terms were more common than they apparently are. I've seen them in several places before, but the two recent examples come to mind.

The first is from a page that says, ". . . the unaffected meaning of the accusative case is more general than any other case."

The second is from an article by Michael Svigel, "Inherent in the unaffected meaning of ἁρπάζω is the notion of “snatching,” not merely relocating from one physical location to another . . . Nowhere does this paper argue that the unaffected meaning of ἁρπάζω is “to rescue,” while it has been demonstrated that it does not mean merely “to ascend” without the connotation of a violent snatching away.

WAnderson
Posts: 52
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 5:18 pm

Re: Clarification on "affected" and "unaffected" meanings

Post by WAnderson » March 15th, 2017, 6:39 pm

Oops, saw the reference to GGBB after I posted. For some reason GGBB didn't come up in the searches I did. Thanks, that helps.

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 677
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Clarification on "affected" and "unaffected" meanings

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » March 16th, 2017, 12:20 pm

WAnderson wrote:Oops, saw the reference to GGBB after I posted. For some reason GGBB didn't come up in the searches I did. Thanks, that helps.
Does anyone know of a source for this terminology earlier than D. Wallace?

Wallace uses the terminology in "Basics NT Syntax" 2009, under the heading "Aspect + Time (unaffected meaning)" no page#. He defines unaffected meaning as the ontological meaning. "The meaning ... in a vacuum ... without a context." Is Wallace is charting his own course on semantics?

Greg Supina, has a glossary http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/grammart.htm He credits Wallace without formal citation.

Affected Meaning
The meaning of the words of a grammatical construction in some actual text. The affected meaning takes into account the unaffected meaning of its particular kind of grammatical construction, the lexical meanings (definitions) of the words, the context, and so on. The affected meaning is also called the phenomenological meaning. See also "Unaffected Meaning."

The following examples of unaffected and affected meanings involve grammatical constructions which express prohibition — using a negative and either a present or aorist imperative. The unaffected meaning of a grammatical construction using a negative and a present imperative would be: "to prohibit an ongoing, repeated or habitual action or process." Then the unaffected meaning of a negative with an aorist imperative would be: "to prohibit an entire or whole action."

The following two affected meanings come from actual instances of this kind of grammatical construction used in Plato's Apology: (1) μὴ θορυβεῖτε (a negative and a present imperative) meaning, "do not constantly agitate the people or repeatedly cause riots"; (2) μὴ θορυβήσητε (a negative and an aorist imperative) meaning, "do not agitate anyone or cause any riot."

An affected meaning can be derived from the unaffected meaning. But the danger lies in deriving an unaffected meaning from just one affected meaning, or from only a few affected meanings — then using that unaffected meaning for the interpretation of all grammatical constructions of that particular kind.

As Wallace points out, grammarians once thought the unaffected meaning of any prohibition using a present imperative was "to demand the cessation of an action already in progress." Then they thought the unaffected meaning of any prohibition using an aorist imperative was "to warn against starting an action." All this was concluded from one mistaken meaning of one prohibition using a present imperative. Then it seemed to be confirmed by the above examples from Plato, since they thought μὴ θορυβεῖτε bore the affected meaning of "stop the rioting and agitation which you have already begun," and μὴ θορυβήσητε seemed to mean "do not start to agitate the people and cause a riot." Only after examining a great number of affected meanings did grammarians (through J.H. Moulton) finally discover the real unaffected meaning of this grammatical construction.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest