RandallButh wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2020, 11:35 am
May I suggest using Greek metalanguage?
I have actually been trying to pick up some of the Greek metalanguage from the BLC notes I have which you wrote. I am wondering if there is a more expanded source. There are some notes in the colloquia but not very extensive, though I haven't got very far in Dickey's volume yet. In particular, I have been unable to find a word to describe what we call 'morphology'. I'll check Robertson because I didn't realize he included any of this. Any other suggestions ?
For some words we may want to use modern Greek. I am pretty sure that μορφολογία exists in modern Greek, though I haven't checked nor do I know its history.
A good place to start is ἡ τέχνη (ὁ Διονύσιος ὁ θρᾷξ)
Here is his definition of a word and a sentence:
λέξις ἐστὶ μέρος ἐλάχιστον τοῦ κατὰ σύνταξιν λόγου
RandallButh wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2020, 12:36 pm
For some words we may want to use modern Greek. I am pretty sure that μορφολογία exists in modern Greek, though I haven't checked nor do I know its history.
A good place to start is ἡ τέχνη (ὁ Διονύσιος ὁ θρᾷξ)
εὐχαριστῶ σοι ! I'll look into ὁ Διονύσιος ὁ θρᾷξ.
I had been thinking to use μορφολογία. I guess I'll continue to.
RandallButh wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2020, 12:36 pm
For some words we may want to use modern Greek. I am pretty sure that μορφολογία exists in modern Greek, though I haven't checked nor do I know its history.
It does not exist in ancient Greek or medieval, though I did find μορφόλυκος, "wolf-like in appearance," which is just a fun word. From the Dictionary of Standard Modern Greek:
μορφολογία η [morfolojía] Ο25 : 1. το σύνολο των χαρακτηριστικών κάθε φυσικού όντος καθώς και η σχετική επιστημονική μελέτη: H ~ του ανθρώπινου σώματος. H ~ της γήινης επιφάνειας / μιας χώρας. 2. κλάδος της γλωσσολογίας που ασχολείται με το σχηματισμό των λέξεων (παραγωγή, σύνθεση) και τις μορφικές μεταβολές τους (γραμματική κατηγορία, κλίση) κατά το σχηματισμό των φράσεων: Φωνολογία, ~ και σύνταξη μιας γλώσσας.
It's clearly borrowed back into the language from English or another European language.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
So, a follow up question. What category of middle does the middle of αφαιρεω fall into here? Indirect reflexive seems the best I can think of, in the sense of God did it in some way to benefit himself. This could be so that further instigation to sin would be prevented?
Direct reflexive doesn't seem to work, not do the other categories proposed by Rutger llan / Rachel Aubrey so far as I can see<.>
This is prime example of using meta language to mediate the cognitive distance between the reader and the text. Why do we need to know "What category of middle does the middle of αφαιρεω fall into here?" to read the text? I don't recall wondering about middle categories except when Carl Conrad addressed the topic at length.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: ↑October 24th, 2020, 3:59 pm
This is prime example of using meta language to mediate the cognitive distance between the reader and the text. Why do we need to know "What category of middle does the middle of αφαιρεω fall into here?" to read the text? I don't recall wondering about middle categories except when Carl Conrad addressed the topic at length.
Why should I not be interested in this. You may not be, that is fine. I don't get though why you would criticize a desire to understand language and to want to learn about it and not just read it. Could I read the sentence, yes; did I need to know the category of middle to do so, no. Was I interested in why a middle voice was chosen here, rather than an active, if possible, or another verb with an active, yes.
Sorry, grumpy response - but you didn't need to respond this way and publicly put me down for an interest I have in language. If you aren't interested, fine, but you don't need to suggest that other people shouldn't be. Did Rachel Aubrey and Rutger Allan waste their time on their dissertations because they discussed these things, do any of the linguists here waste their time?
ed krentz wrote: ↑October 24th, 2020, 9:30 am
Look it up in the mega Lexikon yes hellenikes glosses.
It is the OXford lexicon os Greek.
For those interested.
1. Mega Lexicon, vol. 4. Vol. 3 cannot be found. https://archive.org/details/megalexikontshel04knst
[Dimitrakos] Δημητράκος, Δημήτριος. 1964. Μέγα λεξικόν όλης της ελληνικής γλώσσης [Great dictionary of the entire Greek language]. Vol. 9. Λήθιοςνέκταρ. Athens: Dimitrakos.
[Mega lexikon tēs Hellēnikēs glōssēs]
by Kōnstantinidēs, Anestēs, 1846-1901; Bell, Andrew James, 1856-1932 (bookplate); Sutherland, Ida May, d. 1944, ill
Matthew Longhorn wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 5:22 am
Why should I not be interested in this.
I was asking this question long before you were on the forum. What benefit does a student who wants to read Koine attain from becoming an expert in grammatical tagging? If your objective is to talk about secondary exegetical literature then then there is plenty of that out there and this forum is a place to talk about it. No reason why you shouldn't take an interest in the secondary exegetical literature. No reason why you shouldn't talk about it. No b-greek moderator is going to stop you from talking about it. I have no intention of suppressing questions.
Someone else asked why you were posting in the beginners forum. That question is sort of tangential to my post. Some students get locked in to the path of becoming perennial second quarter Greek students. They end up doing second quarter greek for their entire lives. I did that for almost a decade.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 12:56 pm
I was asking this question long before you were on the forum.
And yet you singled my post out in a dismissive manner as a prime example of the thing you were arguing isn’t worthwhile. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you were trying to do, but you successfully made me pretty angry with the way you communicated