Smyth vs. Goodwin & Gulick

Post Reply
Wayne Kirk
Posts: 27
Joined: January 1st, 2012, 11:32 pm

Smyth vs. Goodwin & Gulick

Post by Wayne Kirk »

I realize that both Smyth and Goodwin are Attic grammars, but can be helpful for Koine. I see Smyth referred to repeatedly on B-Greek. How does Goodwin compare? Let me pose it this way. If I buy Smyth, is there any reason to purchase Goodwin?
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Smyth vs. Goodwin & Gulick

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I've got both, and in fact Goodwin was my Attic grammar before I got Smyth.

I haven't done a detailed comparison, but Smyth seems more comprehensive than Goodwin.

I wouldn't get Goodwin if I already had Smyth, but I would get Smyth if I already had Goodwin.

ETA: My copy of Goodwin is pre-Gulick.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Smyth vs. Goodwin & Gulick

Post by cwconrad »

I would second Stephen's judgment here. Goodwin & Gulick was my first reference grammar also -- and it is good -- but Smyth is really so far superior. On the other hand, although I've never consulted it, Goodwin's Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb is an "oldie but goodie" (3d ed. 1867) that is readily available for download at Textkit, accessible at Google Books and the Perseus site, and is even part of the free Perseus collection at Logos. But on matters of Greek syntax, I would turn first to Rijksbaron.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Wayne Kirk
Posts: 27
Joined: January 1st, 2012, 11:32 pm

Re: Smyth vs. Goodwin & Gulick

Post by Wayne Kirk »

It sounds like my decision is an easy one. Thank you for your learned input.
Post Reply

Return to “Grammars”