Robert from…

[Robert Crowe]

Are you used to translating everything to understand it?

Strange the way we never reflect on some things until a pertinent question is posed. Why so? I think it may be because self-auditing is unpleasantly introverted. But it becomes a pleasure when someone else shows an interest. A big plus for a forum such as this. So thanks for this stimulating question, Stephen; and by informing you, I will at the same time be informing moi-meme. nosce te ipsum takes a lifetime.

Self-auditing…(this may take a moment)…By force of habit I must admit I do mostly translate. But I have caught myself not doing so. At a reading-group I once recited a passage of Homer's Iliad and then forgot to translate it as was routine. I innocently thought it was perfectly intelligible without further ado. I had sung it with perfect scansion and musical pitch; and, afterwards, what I mistook for stunned admiration at my rhapsodic skills was actually just a cue to translate.

'Oh yes, a translation!' I engaged, like one chucked from lofty Olympus to this world of mere mortals. 'And which language would you like it translated into? How about Courtly Persian or Old Churchy Georgian?' And what do you know, but the work-a-day others opted for modern prosaic English, thank goodness.

A strange phenomenon I've had is dreaming in unintelligible Greek. Is this just a phase I'm going through common to language learners in general? Wish I knew? I also wonder what Freud would make of it. Anyone got his fax number?

Stephen! I take your question as also having a hidden agenda. This being a kind disposition to give me some tips on how best to rely on the said cerebral faculty. Be sure I would welcome any suggestions wholeheartedly. My present understanding is that this will come naturally with extensive reading. Something of an obstruction for me here is a predisposition for grammar sic!, but am trying to balance the two.

Robert

[Robert Crowe]

Thanks for joining and posting. Found your first posts the most entertaining reading on this forum since Bearded Bill of Asheville departed decades ago. On ambiguity I agree. I wonder however how you reconcile this with approval of GGBB which as I see it attempts (unsuccessfully) to stamp out all ambiguity.

Stirling! Thanks for your comments and especially muchly for the accolade.

I take what you say about GGBB. Essentially though I was comparing it favourably with previous (to my own knowledge) NT Greek grammars. I was particularly impressed by its excellent presentation and multiplication of categories. My background understanding stemmed from a course in Biblical Studies I attended in the early 80s where Greek was considered as little more than a compulsory chore with a 'Let's do the minimum and forget about it' status. Subsequent to this, there was a hiatus from NT Greek until fairly recently. So imagine my surprise to see the great renaissance in NT Greek that had occurred in my absence.

I have no problem with the doctrinal agenda in GGBB. To my mind it's this very interest that has driven the re-birth. It's not surprising that people who think the NT is the Word of God want to clarify every jot and tittle. We are much indebted to them. No one has that degree of focus in say Xenophon's Anabasis.

DB Wallace states that GGBB was written to be a resource for the MTh course at Dallas Theological Seminary. His purpose is to equip future translators who will need to resolve ambiguities in their task.

Slán
Robert

[Stephen Hughes]

A strange phenomenon I've had is dreaming in unintelligible Greek. Is this just a phase I'm going through common to language learners in general? Wish I knew? I also wonder what Freud would make of it. Anyone got his fax number.

That has happened to to me on several occasions, but I always had the sense that there was perfect understanding, but as I came out of the pre-sensory moments of waking I could still hear the Greek, but as the brain woke up, it was swamped. Just daily conversations at places of work and in the street. Nothing to interest Herr Dr. Freud.

Are you used to translating everything to understand it?

By force of habit I must admit I do mostly translate. ... Stephen! I take your question as also having a hidden agenda.

Not very hidden, no.

How about Courtly Persian or Old Churchy Georgian?'

I bought myself a couple of Ugaritic grammars to get me though the mental void now that I'm back in the penal colony for the holiday season. My wife's only question/comment was, "Oh, what, another dead language? Good for zombies.".

[Robert Crowe]

I bought myself a couple of Ugaritic grammars to get me though the mental void now that I'm back in the penal colony for the holiday season. My wife's only question/comment was, "Oh, what, another dead language? Good for zombies.".

Very similar instance here. A lady-friend saw me with a book on Old Latin. 'Isn't Latin old enough!' she posed. She thought the tag 'Old' was tautological.

[Barry Hofstetter]

First of all, dead langauge is a misnomer. What we study are synchronically frozen languages, and I got much the same reaction (even from a fellow Latin teacher) when making an attempt at Sahidic Coptic. More seriously, it is precisely the multipication of categories in Wallace's GGBB which some of find methodologically suspect and less than helpful for dealing with the Greek as Greek, rather than as a tool for decoding the English exegetically. None of that detracts from the joy of seeing someone enthusiastically returning to the study of Greek...

[Robert Crowe]

dead langauge is a misnomer. What we study are synchronically frozen languages, and I got much the same reaction (even from a fellow Latin teacher) when making an attempt at Sahidic Coptic.

Why do the hoi-polloi demand an explanation as to why an ancient language is studied? Personally I've never given it much thought, and don't expect others with a similar interest to have done so either. So please feel free to ignore this question. My advice is not to take it seriously, as no answer is ever considered adequate. On being asked this a few days ago, I replied that one day English will be a 'dead' language and people will be learning it to watch Coronation Street.

[Robert Crowe]

it is precisely the multipication of categories in Wallace's GGBB which some of find methodologically suspect and less than helpful for dealing with the Greek as Greek, rather than as a tool for decoding the English exegetically. None of that detracts from the joy of seeing someone enthusiastically returning to the study of Greek..

Yes, I can agree with this criticism. To my understanding, a grammarians business is to describe the various constructions, à la Aristote, whereas it is that of a linguist to define the basic concepts. Of course this grammatical catalogue is subject to revision; we could compare the various ongoing adjustments to biological nomenclature.

A complete definitive grammar is difficult to draw up because:
1. Many constructions are difficult to 'pigeonhole'.
2 Infrequent usages are often not covered. E.g. The Conative 'Potential' action. Wallace is here excused since, to my understanding, it doesn't appear in the NT. But it occurs in Classical literature and is not mentioned by Herbert Smyth.

Stanley Porter states in his 'Idioms of the Greek New Testament' that there is no need for a multiplication of categories. This saves him from many pitfalls, but he has come in for adverse criticism for his views on Verbal Aspect.

Truly these are tasks for the brave. I think it was HW Smyth who said, upon completing his Greek Grammar, that he felt as if he had written it in his own blood.