The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3465
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 11th, 2017, 7:45 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 4:34 am
I was expecting to be asked what I meant by "inadequate", when I said that current lexical resources are inadequate. In the absence of a question, let me answer an unspoken one...

To be able to compose or speak according to an authentic style system, then it would be really handy for us to have;
ἀλείφειν (spec. vs abstr. χρίειν)

somewhere at least in an entry, so that we can choose the right one to use.
First I think you would need to clearly demonstrate that this is lexically determined in Greek, and not determined by other factors. So far, I don't know what I would look for to prove whether this is true - what results would invalidate the theory, and what results would prove it true? Once you have that kind of research hypothesis, you can see if it's true, and then propose it for the lexicons.

For instance, if ἀλείφειν is specific and χρίειν is abstract, are there specific contexts in which one should occur but not the other?

I think it's a little early to criticize the lexicons at this point.
0 x


ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 11th, 2017, 12:11 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:45 am
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 4:34 am
I was expecting to be asked what I meant by "inadequate", when I said that current lexical resources are inadequate. In the absence of a question, let me answer an unspoken one...

To be able to compose or speak according to an authentic style system, then it would be really handy for us to have;
ἀλείφειν (spec. vs abstr. χρίειν)

somewhere at least in an entry, so that we can choose the right one to use.
First I think you would need to clearly demonstrate that this is lexically determined in Greek, and not determined by other factors. So far, I don't know what I would look for to prove whether this is true - what results would invalidate the theory, and what results would prove it true? Once you have that kind of research hypothesis, you can see if it's true, and then propose it for the lexicons.
I can't for the life of my imagine why the issue of reasearch has come up again? I live in functioning but underdeveloped area of the world. There are no research libraries here. I don't see this phenomenon as some kind of theory. It is a skill in reading and composition. There is no exhaustive dataset. With some training and practice, it is really pretty easy to spot the patterns of general statements and specific ones. After reading extensively over a long period of time, while recognising the patterns, it is obvious that some words only occur in one or other of the two moieties. Where is there any theory in that? It is a practical skill and simple observation.

As I have said earlier, there are some words that change their meaning or sense according to context, such as κλήρος. There is a general or abstract meaning when it is used in general or abstract contexts and a concrete meaning when used in concrete contexts. Lexica give this information now, but don't specifically point out the context in which those meaning occur.

What lexicographer is going to give due consideration to any proposals that I make? If I send a letter to a publisher that their house should include such and so, I wouldn't expect even to get a reply, and if I did, it would be, "We have no idea what you are talking about". There are not enough people doing composition to warrant inclusion of material that would be useful for composition.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:45 am
For instance, if ἀλείφειν is specific and χρίειν is abstract, are there specific contexts in which one should occur but not the other?
Yes. There are. Χρίειν occurs at the beginning of thoughts, much like the word ἀποστέλλειν does. Like πέμπειν too, ἀλείφειν also occurs at the end of thoughts. Sometmes thoughts cover many phrases and at other times they are contained in a single phrase.

The most definite thing that can be said from these observations is that when one composes, one has to limit the use of specific or general words to their respective speech style, and abstract or general style comes before the concrete.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:45 am
I think it's a little early to criticize the lexicons at this point.
I hope that I could get some criticism and suggestion on this idea from someone who has already thought through some issues like this, or who enjoys engaging with new ideas. Understandably, the forum lacks skilled moderation in the areas that I am generally interested in. Comments made from within the learning process, or the aclimatisation period that human beings have for new ideas are fairly predictable enough, but not of great value.

Jonathan, if you try working with this, it might be useful in your understanding of the text. This is a skill that one needs time to develop.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3465
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 11th, 2017, 2:43 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 12:11 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:45 am
For instance, if ἀλείφειν is specific and χρίειν is abstract, are there specific contexts in which one should occur but not the other?
Yes. There are. Χρίειν occurs at the beginning of thoughts, much like the word ἀποστέλλειν does. Like πέμπειν too, ἀλείφειν also occurs at the end of thoughts. Sometmes thoughts cover many phrases and at other times they are contained in a single phrase.
I'm not sure how to identify the boundaries of a "thought". Here are the places I see these words used in the GNT.

Luke.4.17 καὶ ἐπεδόθη αὐτῷ βιβλίον τοῦ προφήτου Ἠσαΐου καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον εὗρεν τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον· Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, ἀπέσταλκέν με κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.

Acts.4.27 συνήχθησαν γὰρ ἐπ’ ἀληθείας ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ ἐπὶ τὸν ἅγιον παῖδά σου Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ἔχρισας, Ἡρῴδης τε καὶ Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος σὺν ἔθνεσιν καὶ λαοῖς Ἰσραήλ, ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἡ χείρ σου καὶ ἡ βουλὴ προώρισεν γενέσθαι.

Acts.10.36 τὸν λόγον ὃν ἀπέστειλεν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ εὐαγγελιζόμενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων κύριος. ὑμεῖς οἴδατε τὸ γενόμενον ῥῆμα καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐκήρυξεν Ἰωάννης, Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέθ, ὡς ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει, ὃς διῆλθεν εὐεργετῶν καὶ ἰώμενος πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἦν μετ’ αὐτοῦ·

2Cor.1.21 ὁ δὲ βεβαιῶν ἡμᾶς σὺν ὑμῖν εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ χρίσας ἡμᾶς θεός, ὁ καὶ σφραγισάμενος ἡμᾶς καὶ δοὺς τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν.

Heb.1.9 διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου, ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου·

Matt.6.17 σὺ δὲ νηστεύων ἄλειψαί σου τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπόν σου νίψαι, ὅπως μὴ φανῇς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νηστεύων ἀλλὰ τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ·

Mark.6.12 Καὶ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν ἵνα μετανοῶσιν, καὶ δαιμόνια πολλὰ ἐξέβαλλον, καὶ ἤλειφον ἐλαίῳ πολλοὺς ἀρρώστους καὶ ἐθεράπευον.

Mark.16.1 Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν.

Luke.7.37 καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ ἥτις ἦν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἁμαρτωλός, καὶ ἐπιγνοῦσα ὅτι κατάκειται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ Φαρισαίου, κομίσασα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου καὶ στᾶσα ὀπίσω παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ κλαίουσα, τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἤρξατο βρέχειν τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς ἐξέμασσεν, καὶ κατεφίλει τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ.

Luke.7.46 ἐλαίῳ τὴν κεφαλήν μου οὐκ ἤλειψας· αὕτη δὲ μύρῳ ἤλειψεν τοὺς πόδας μου.

John.11.2 ἦν δὲ Μαριὰμ ἡ ἀλείψασα τὸν κύριον μύρῳ καὶ ἐκμάξασα τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς, ἧς ὁ ἀδελφὸς Λάζαρος ἠσθένει.

John.12.3 ἡ οὖν Μαριὰμ λαβοῦσα λίτραν μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου ἤλειψεν τοὺς πόδας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ·

Jas.5.14 ἀσθενεῖ τις ἐν ὑμῖν; προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ προσευξάσθωσαν ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἀλείψαντες αὐτὸν ἐλαίῳ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου·
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 11th, 2017, 3:36 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 2:43 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 12:11 pm
at the beginning of thoughts,
I'm not sure how to identify the boundaries of a "thought".
The terminology is not set yet. The B-Greek past-time of quibbling over terminology and classifications will have to wait for a while.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 2:43 pm
Here are the places I see these words used in the GNT.
Try to work with the data you've gotten together. I suggest that you organise them a bit as you work with them. Take some risks - civilised people are not going to criticise you for trying something new.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3465
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 11th, 2017, 5:42 pm

I didn't think these examples show that Χρίειν always occurs at the beginning of thoughts, or that ἀλείφειν always occurs at the end of thoughts.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 11th, 2017, 11:15 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 5:42 pm
I didn't think these examples show that Χρίειν always occurs at the beginning of thoughts, or that ἀλείφειν always occurs at the end of thoughts.
All the examples you've put up are okay, except Luke 7:46, which needs its antecedent verse to be quoted too.

Beginning + End = Whole. We are talking about a two part system. It is much simpler than you are perhaps looking for. It is like the example at the very start of this thread:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pm
Greek typically reads like this:
  • Amenities are provided for customers' convenience. You can piss, shit and spit there.
To substitute, χρίειν with 'customer', I would have said, "We know that 'customer' always occurs at the beginning of thoughts." Another way to say that is to point out that Koine authours are limited to using 'customer' only in the abstract / general speech style. Yet another way is to say that 'customer' is an indication that the proximity - in some cases on just one side, and in other cases on both sides - is the abstract / general moiety.

Relative clauses and clauses following some discourse markers are parenthetical.

[What I suspect is happening with relative phrases behaving like they do, is that they are preserving a possible earlier form of usage, from before the speech styles were divided on Platonic ideas vs forms thinking into the way we see them in the Koine Greek lexical set. That is to say that what I expect to find in Greek that has not been structured with an hellenistic idea vs forms structure is single phrases moving from abstract to concrete. That is why I used "thoughts" rather than "texts" or "speech acts". To speak of that further, by abstracting the lexical data based on what is clearly evident in that part of Greek that is divided into moieties, and then feeding that data back into word-order problems in relative clauses and phrases following some discourse markers produces some beautiful and interesting patterns too.]

The first steps in recognising the moieties that you are struggling with now, are actually the very simple part of the pattern. What is more difficult is to understand how the vocabukary evolved to the point that we see it in the Koine texts. Questions like what are the origins or lineages of individual words, are facinating.

For your above examples, you could do something like this...

Given the thought, "Amenities are provided for customers' convenience. You can piss, shit and spit there." mark the division between the abstract and the concrete with a line, or use two contrastive colours to highlight the beginning of the thought with one and the end with the other.

In the English it is easy because the word-stock developed into registers to mark and confirm social class distinctions in post-Norman society. English has the habit of using one register or the other in extended texts. That is similar to the Classical Greek genres, with their distinctive vocabularies for prose and verse. Greek of our period, at least, is not like that. It alternates between the abstract/general and concrete moieties, expressing that ideas could become forms, and that God could become man.

Jonathan, would you like to try to divide your examples now? Be confident, you can do it.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3465
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 11:15 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 5:42 pm
I didn't think these examples show that Χρίειν always occurs at the beginning of thoughts, or that ἀλείφειν always occurs at the end of thoughts.
All the examples you've put up are okay, except Luke 7:46, which needs its antecedent verse to be quoted too.
Then I do not see how you are dividing this up.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 11:15 pm
Jonathan, would you like to try to divide your examples now? Be confident, you can do it.
I think this is your project, not mine. I was trying to provide data that could help you state your theory more concretely and see if it holds or not. My intuition for where thoughts begin and end places some of these words in places you said they would not occur. But I don't know how you are dividing up the text, or what counts as the beginning or the ending of a thought.

I think you've done a first step where you see some patterns in a text. Are those patterns lexically determined according to the principle you suggest, or due to something else? To answer that question, I think you need a clear enough way to state your principle that you can look at any text, divide it up, and test it. Once you have done that to enough examples, other people can look at your work and see if they agree with your conclusions.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 12th, 2017, 11:32 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
Then I do not see how you are dividing this up.
If you are not willing to make mistakes based on your current knowledge (ignorance) and be corrected, then I'm not interested in teaching you.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
I think this is your project, not mine.
Project? Recognising which speech style a word belongs to is not a (research) project. It is a skill that develops with practice.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
I was trying to provide data that could help you state your theory more concretely and see if it holds or not. My intuition for where thoughts begin and end places some of these words in places you said they would not occur. But I don't know how you are dividing up the text, or what counts as the beginning or the ending of a thought.
I understand you put effort into that. Actually, I did the same search, and looked at the same set of verses before mentioning χρίειν and ἀλείφειν.
Jonathan Robi-e wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
I think you've done a first step where you see some patterns in a text.
I am not at the first step in understanding this, you were.

As I said before, seeing patterns in the text is the third step. The first step is engaging with the text. The second step is recognising over a long period of time that the speech style of the text alternates between abstract / general statements and descriptions of details / concrete tangible things. The third step is that over continued wide reading, it is noticeable that some words only occur in one of the speech styles or the other, and some in both speech styles but with different meanings.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
Are those patterns lexically determined according to the principle you suggest, or due to something else?
I was engaging with you because I thought you wanted to learn how, not proving anything to you.

Of course it is not only lexically determined. Greek is an inflected language. There are ways that words can be used in the other moiety (speech style), by using appropriate grammatical strategies. I stated that in the initial pseudo-Greek example ("are provided" - although that is not a strictly true representation of the way that voice is used in Greek within and between the moieties, but more of an allusion to the fact that it is used in some way).
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
To answer that question, I think you need a clear enough way to state your principle that you can look at any text, divide it up, and test it. Once you have done that to enough examples, other people can look at your work and see if they agree with your conclusions.
This is not reasearch, there are no principles or conclusions. I don't need to state anything to be able to "look", "divide" and "test". It is a skill and it takes practice. In the initial pseudo-Greek example:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pm
  • Amenities are provided for customers' convenience. You can piss, shit and spit there.
you didn't look, divide and test to recognise speech-styles. Why would you do that in Greek?
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3465
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 13th, 2017, 2:33 pm

Feel free to keep developing your thoughts in this thread. I'm going to drop out now, I don't think we go about things in the same way, and we seem to be at cross-purposes, so I will drop out and leave you space to explore further.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Shirley Rollinson
Posts: 309
Joined: June 4th, 2011, 6:19 pm
Location: New Mexico
Contact:

Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.

Post by Shirley Rollinson » April 13th, 2017, 4:14 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 11:32 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
Then I do not see how you are dividing this up.
If you are not willing to make mistakes based on your current knowledge (ignorance) and be corrected, then I'm not interested in teaching you.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
I think this is your project, not mine.
Project? Recognising which speech style a word belongs to is not a (research) project. It is a skill that develops with practice.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
I was trying to provide data that could help you state your theory more concretely and see if it holds or not. My intuition for where thoughts begin and end places some of these words in places you said they would not occur. But I don't know how you are dividing up the text, or what counts as the beginning or the ending of a thought.
I understand you put effort into that. Actually, I did the same search, and looked at the same set of verses before mentioning χρίειν and ἀλείφειν.
Jonathan Robi-e wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
I think you've done a first step where you see some patterns in a text.
I am not at the first step in understanding this, you were.

As I said before, seeing patterns in the text is the third step. The first step is engaging with the text. The second step is recognising over a long period of time that the speech style of the text alternates between abstract / general statements and descriptions of details / concrete tangible things. The third step is that over continued wide reading, it is noticeable that some words only occur in one of the speech styles or the other, and some in both speech styles but with different meanings.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
Are those patterns lexically determined according to the principle you suggest, or due to something else?
I was engaging with you because I thought you wanted to learn how, not proving anything to you.

Of course it is not only lexically determined. Greek is an inflected language. There are ways that words can be used in the other moiety (speech style), by using appropriate grammatical strategies. I stated that in the initial pseudo-Greek example ("are provided" - although that is not a strictly true representation of the way that voice is used in Greek within and between the moieties, but more of an allusion to the fact that it is used in some way).
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 8:08 am
To answer that question, I think you need a clear enough way to state your principle that you can look at any text, divide it up, and test it. Once you have done that to enough examples, other people can look at your work and see if they agree with your conclusions.
This is not reasearch, there are no principles or conclusions. I don't need to state anything to be able to "look", "divide" and "test". It is a skill and it takes practice. In the initial pseudo-Greek example:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pm
  • Amenities are provided for customers' convenience. You can piss, shit and spit there.
you didn't look, divide and test to recognise speech-styles. Why would you do that in Greek?
toujours la politesse
0 x

Post Reply