B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
Skip to content
Quick links
FAQ
Login
Register
Board index Greek Language and Linguistics Word Meanings
The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
37 posts
4
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 13th, 2017, 6:06 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
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.
Being a devil's advocate is by definition being at cross purposes.
I don't know about continuing further. The ideas are developed already, and useful in reading, but I haven't gotten enough control of them to use them in composition.
So far as I understand it, this thread was at your request and for the specific purpose of explaining the background of my thinking that lead to the assertion that ἐστίν had moved for a specific purpose. Perhaps enough has been said already, to show that I am of the opinion that there are two speech styles present in Koine Greek, and that far from becoming a debased form of the language lacking the range of styles that Classical Greek had, there is a structured and alternating set of two speech styles, and that the abstract element comes first, and the concrete one second. So far as I can determine, γεννᾶν belongs to the abstract / general group, which puts it in the first half of the thought (thought being that verse in this case).
If it is gammatically part of the second part of the phrase, but in terms of belonging to either one of the moieties, it is a word that is known and used (exclusively collocated) with the abstract / general moiety, then it seems that in this case, the word's attraction to the first (abstract / conceptual) part of the phrase has pulled the ἐκ πνεύματος into the first position of the second (specific / concrete) part of the phrase, where an adjective should be. (In answer to the question that I assume you are asking, yes, πνεῦμα seems to belong to the second (concrete) moiety). Rather than the ἐστίν following the adjective and preceding the prepositional phrase, the attraction (based on membership of the moiety) of the adjectival preposition to the left pulls the next element into the first position of the second half of the phrase - the predicate.
I wonder if enough has been said already, that at least it can be recognised that there was a basis of reasoning for my explanation to Alan? And that basis of reasoning was based on a two-fold classification of the vocabulary of Koine (I can find the older pattern which is preserved in Koine Greek in relative phrases and after some discourse markers in Classical Greek, but not the structured alternating moieties that are so clearly in our period of the language)?
If enough has been said then this thread has served its purpose, and I can go back to thinking about the syntactic vs the lexical function of prefixed prepositions. The moieties stuff is last year's thinking and boring already.
Jonathan, have we said enough that with or without evidence or proof being presented in full or partially, and with others either understanding, partially understanding, or not understanding what I am talking about, I at least for my part can see (have found) an overal pattern in the vocabulary, or at least I make the claim that I can see (find) an overal pattern in the Koine Greek language, associating certain vocabulary elements with either of two speech styles, and that I can identify, or at least that I claim that I can identify words as belonging to one group or the other? If that at least is clear, then I think enough has been said.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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 13th, 2017, 6:06 pm
Shirley Rollinson wrote: ↑
April 13th, 2017, 4:14 pm
toujours la politesse
I realise that he thought he was being helpful. But this thread was started to explain a skill to Jonathan, not to formulate a theory.
Finding the patterns and the words they contain is a matter of trial and error. The skill is in recognising when there are errors - not avoiding errors - and then working with the errors. I don't think there is a way to make progress with this unless there is a willingness to make errors.
What I was hoping that somebody, who was willing to try to find the same structured limitations on usage for a number of words that I am finding, could look at what is happening from the inside.
The suggestion to look at other texts produces something like the following. It is some of the data derived from the New Testament put into Diodorus Siculus. Abstract / general words are green and underlined, while concrete / specific words are red and bold. Nobody would be convinced by anything of this sort. There is not enough common vocabulary.
Diodorus Siculus, Library, 13.90 wrote:
ὁ δ᾽ Ἰμίλκας ἅμα τῷ φωτὶ τὴν δύναμιν ἐντὸς τῶν τειχῶν παρεισαγαγὼν
σχεδὸν ἅπαντας τοὺς ἐγκαταλειφθέντας ἀνεῖλεν:
ὅτε δὴ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ναοῖς καταπεφευγότας ἀποσπῶντες οἱ Καρχηδόνιοι ἀνῄρουν.
[2] λέγεται δὲ τὸν Τελλίαν τὸν πρωτεύοντα τῶν πολιτῶν πλούτῳ καὶ καλοκἀγαθίᾳ συνατυχῆσαι τῇ πατρίδι, βουληθέντα καταφυγεῖν σύν τισιν ἑτέροις εἰς τὸ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ἱερόν, νομίζοντα τῆς εἰς θεοὺς παρανομίας ἀφέξεσθαι τοὺς Καρχηδονίους:
θεωροῦντα δὲ αὐτῶν τὴν ἀσέβειαν,
ἐμπρῆσαι τὸν νεὼν καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐν τούτῳ ἀναθημάτων ἑαυτὸν συγκατακαῦσαι.
μιᾷ γὰρ πράξει διελάμβανεν ἀφελέσθαι θεῶν ἀσέβειαν, πολεμίων ἁρπαγὰς πολλῶν χρημάτων,
μέγιστον ἑαυτοῦ τὴν εἰς τὸ σῶμα ἐσομένην ὕβριν.
[3] ὁ δὲ Ἰμίλκας τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τὰς οἰκίας συλήσας καὶ φιλοτίμως ἐρευνήσας,
τοσαύτην ὠφέλειαν συνήθροισεν ὅσην εἰκός ἐστιν ἐσχηκέναι πόλιν οἰκουμένην ὑπὸ ἀνδρῶν εἴκοσι μυριάδων,
ἀπόρθητον δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως γεγενημένην,
πλουσιωτάτην δὲ σχεδὸν τῶν τότε Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων γεγενημένην, καὶ ταῦτα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ φιλοκαλησάντων εἰς παντοίων κατασκευασμάτων πολυτέλειαν:
[4] καὶ γὰρ γραφαὶ παμπληθεῖς ηὑρέθησαν εἰς ἄκρον ἐκπεπονημέναι καὶ παντοίων ἀνδριάντων φιλοτέχνως δεδημιουργημένων ὑπεράγων ἀριθμός.
τὰ μὲν οὖν πολυτελέστατα τῶν ἔργων ἀπέστειλεν εἰς Καρχηδόνα,
ἐν οἷς καὶ τὸν Φαλάριδος συνέβη κομισθῆναι ταῦρον,
τὴν δ᾽ ἄλλην ὠφέλειαν ἐλαφυροπώλησεν.
[5] τοῦτον δὲ τὸν ταῦρον ὁ Τίμαιος ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις διαβεβαιωσάμενος μὴ γεγονέναι τὸ σύνολον, ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς τύχης ἠλέγχθη: Σκιπίων γὰρ ὕστερον ταύτης τῆς ἁλώσεως σχεδὸν ἑξήκοντα καὶ διακοσίοις ἔτεσιν ἐκπορθήσας Καρχηδόνα τοῖς Ἀκραγαντίνοις μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν διαμεινάντων παρὰ τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις ἀποκατέστησε τὸν ταῦρον, ὃς καὶ τῶνδε τῶν ἱστοριῶν γραφομένων ἦν ἐν Ἀκράγαντι. [6] περὶ δὲ τούτου φιλοτιμότερον εἰπεῖν προήχθην, διότι Τίμαιος ὁ τῶν πρό γε αὐτοῦ συγγραφέων πικρότατα κατηγορήσας καὶ συγγνώμην οὐδεμίαν τοῖς ἱστοριογράφοις ἀπολιπὼν αὐτὸς εὑρίσκεται σχεδιάζων, ἐν οἷς μάλιστα ἑαυτὸν ἀποπέφαγκεν ἀκριβολογούμενον. [7] δεῖ γάρ, οἶμαι, τοὺς συγγραφεῖς ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀγνοήμασι τυγχάνειν συγγνώμης, ὡς ἂν ἀνθρώπους ὄντας καὶ τῆς ἐν τοῖς παροιχομένοις χρόνοις ἀληθείας οὔσης δυσευρέτου, τοὺς μέντοι γε κατὰ προαίρεσιν οὐ τυγχάνοντας τοῦ ἀκριβοῦς προσηκόντως κατηγορίας τυγχάνειν, ὅταν κολακεύοντές τινας ἢ δι᾽ ἔχθραν πικρότερον προσβάλλοντες ἀποσφάλλωνται τῆς ἀληθείας.
σχεδὸν - collocated with πᾶς
φιλοτίμως - based in NT usage patterns for φιλοτιμεῖσθαι.
There are not the search tools for other Koine authours freely available, to easily be able to do what can be done with the New Testament.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 13th, 2017, 6:39 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 13th, 2017, 6:06 pm
Jonathan, have we said enough that with or without evidence or proof being presented in full or partially, and with others either understanding, partially understanding, or not understanding what I am talking about, I at least for my part can see (have found) an overal pattern in the vocabulary, or at least I make the claim that I can see (find) an overal pattern in the Koine Greek language, associating certain vocabulary elements with either of two speech styles, and that I can identify, or at least that I claim that I can identify words as belonging to one group or the other? If that at least is clear, then I think enough has been said.
Yes, I think that's the status.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 13th, 2017, 6:49 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 13th, 2017, 6:06 pm
Shirley Rollinson wrote: ↑
April 13th, 2017, 4:14 pm
toujours la politesse
I realise that he thought he was being helpful. But this thread was started to explain a skill to Jonathan, not to formulate a theory.
I asked that this be taken out of the beginner's thread, where it really wasn't appropriate. That's how it landed here.
We may have different ways of establishing what is true about language, and we may have different intuitions about the Greek language. If anyone else wants to pursue this with you, they should feel free to.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
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 24th, 2017, 8:14 pm
Well, if somebody is willing to pick up utensils and ingredients and to try to cook as well, or is willing test drive from the front seat, behind the steering wheel, I'm willing to go on with this, so long as we do not visit the point of "you need to prove to me (us) that you are not wrong". On ethical grounds, I refuse and have consistently refused to give creedence or ground to that way of thinking that led us into eight and a half years of unjust war.
A few observations before discussing one of Levinsohn's examples:
● The verb τολμᾷν occurs in both speech styles. When it is in the abstract / general context, the person "daring" is in the company of others, and when it is in the concrete / specific speech style, it refers to a person alone / in and of themselves. Putting those contexts into glosses for the sake of foreign language speakers, the abstract moiety meaning of τολμᾷν might be "to risk public shame", and the concrete moiety meaning of τολμᾷν might be simply "to have courage in one's heart".
● In its two NT occurences, ἐξετάζειν belongs to the concrete / specific speech style.
In regard to an example from Levinsohn's split constituents, he is apparently unaware of the dual speech styles in both Classical and Koine Greek, so let me contextualise the example in terms of speech styles.
In Classical Greek, as in the example below, the first part of the sentence is in abstract / general speech style. This then develops in the Koine into alternating full phrases, as discussed earlier in this thread. Now the example:
John 21:12 wrote:
Οὐδεὶς δὲ ἐτόλμα τῶν μαθητῶν ἐξετάσαι αὐτόν, Σὺ τίς εἶ;
That word order - splitting the ἐτόλμα from the ἐξετάσαι - makes sure that we realise that the τολμᾷν there belongs to the abstract / general speech style, with the meaning "dare in front of others", "risk loss of face", and not part of the concrete / specific speech style, where it might have meant "personally have courage in one's heart". Another way to make the break between speech styles clear would be to clearly place the ἐξετάσαι in the concrete / specific speech style by moving αὐτόν in front of ἐξετάσαι, which would be Οὐδεὶς δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν ἐτόλμα αὐτόν ἐξετάσαι*. Doing that would also make it clear that the change of speech styles occurs between the two verbs. Another way of thinking about it is that is something like couching the verbs between other elements in the speech style, to make it clear where the elements belong.
There are a great many more examples of infinitives clearly moved into the other speech style by separating it with several other elements, than are given in the list the Jonathan has published from Levinsohn in the other thread. But let me say again that if one comes from a classical background, it is understandable that the dual vocabulary moieties could have escaped notice in Classical Greek studies, because they occur patterned within much shorter phrases. It is in the Koine that they become more evident, because they are evident in alternating whole (grammatically complete) phrases too.
[Let me add that 1 Corinthians 11:21 is an interesting use of τολμᾷν. Κατὰ ἀτιμίαν λέγω, ὡς ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠσθενήσαμεν· ἐν ᾧ δ’ ἄν τις τολμᾷ — ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λέγω — τολμῶ κἀγώ. I am not sure whether to take ἐν ᾧ δ’ ἄν τις τολμᾷ as part of whch moeity. Presumably since it is in a relative clause, and it is clearly separated by ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λέγω from the phrase that follows, it is in the "risk public shame" meaning, while Paul's statement is in the "have courage in one's heart" meaning.]
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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 25th, 2017, 10:47 am
In regards to Matthew 8:9 in the list of Levinsohn's split constituents that Jonathan has published. I would like to include a post I made in the Matthew 1:20 thread.
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 2nd, 2017, 3:11 pm
Alan Bunning wrote: ↑
April 2nd, 2017, 12:23 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 2nd, 2017, 12:00 pm
Is it [τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν] is [ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου] where the participle is an articular participle, or is it [τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ] is [γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου] where the participle is used adjectivally, do you think?
I am not sure. But in either case, I still don't like the verb being where it is, as it seems to set apart "ἁγίου".
I get you point about it being set apart. We can discuss that, but it will take a bit of patience to understand.
In your translation "begotten in her", it seems you have grouped the words as in:
[τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν] is [ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου]
I am inclined to take it as divided the other way:
[τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ] is [γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου]
"That which is in her is decended (traces its geneology) from the Holy Spirit."
To see how the structure is built up, have a look at these explanatory phrases:
Matthew 26:73 wrote:
καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ.
for your speaking gives you away
Mark 14:70 wrote:
καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖος εἶ
for you are a Galilean too
The verb "to be" is at the end, after the complement.
Now have a look at what happens when a prepositional phrase is added:
Matthew 8:9 wrote:
Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας·
for I am a man under authority too, with soldiers under myself
Romans 11:1 wrote:
Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Ἰσραηλίτης εἰμί, ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραάμ, φυλῆς Βενιαμίν.
for I am an Israelite too, from the lineage of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin
The verb "to be" now appears to be in the middle of the complement. This shows us where in Matthew 1:20 the ἐστιν has moved from.
The way that only the article is in front of the γάρ can be seen in this example:
1 Corinthians 9:2 wrote:
ἡ γὰρ σφραγὶς τῆς ἐμῆς ἀποστολῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ.
You are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
Putting those points together, we can say that "canonically" (according to the rules of composition) it would be expected to be τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθέν ἐστιν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου*. The question is why is it not that.
In all of these examples that we have just looked at the subject is a more abstract idea than the complement. That is to say that there is clear distinction between abstract concepts and concrete ones and that distinction is alligned with the grammar. Here is a discussion of that.
ἡ λαλιά is speech without the concrete idea of actual words, while δῆλον "disclosed", "evident" describes what is right in front of somebody's eyes, and συ "you" is a tangible person.
Here ἡ σφραγὶς is metaphorical, and ἀποστολή "apostleship", "missionary endeavour", while ὑμεῖς "you" are tangible people.
In Matthew 1:20, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου”, γεννηθὲν is in the complement, but it is the abstract idea of descent rather than "giving birth" as one might expect. γεννηθὲν moves according to rules of word order, rather than grammar, it moves to the left, the abstract side of the verb "to be", in moving, it takes the ἐκ πνεύματός with it.
That inadvertantly leaves the ἐστιν between a noun and its adjective.
If the verb had been one like κυόμενον "conceived" a concrete tactile word, rather than the more abstract γεννηθέν "beget", "be the father (not only biological) of", then there would not be a discordance between the degree of abstraction in the beginning and end of the text and the grammatical structure, and hence no need to move the ἐστιν.
There is nothing unusual about the word order of ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν in the verse. It is in the expected position for a prepositional phrase.
Have a look at the pattern of speech styles for those verses apartfrom tne one in question. So, let's take verses 7 - 9:
Καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
[Part of the story-telling structure.]
Ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν
[This is an example of the moieties arranged consecutively in one phrase - the older "Classical" style. ἐλθεῖν is a common abstract / general moiety only word, and θεραπεύειν is common concrete / specific moiety only word, so there is no need to be careful with word order details to make it clear whether the abstract / general meaning is meant, or the concrete specific one].
8 Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη,
[This common formulaic structure (with a few varients, follows the progression from abstract / general "took into account what was said / happened then made a response" to concrete / specific "said these actual words". As happens in cases like this, the ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος finds itself somewhere in the flow of transition between the moieties]
Κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς· ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου.
[We know that the abstract / general moiety comes first, and we know that ἔρχεσθαι is single moiety abstract / general, so this us being used here to more-or-less mark off the end of the first speech style. ἰάεσθαι is a concrete / specific moiety only word.]
9 Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας·
[See the imported quote above.]
καὶ λέγω τούτῳ, Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται· καὶ ἄλλῳ, Ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται· καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου, Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ.
[The abstract / general speech style here is structured grammatically with τούτῳ ... καὶ ἄλλῳ. The three words here - ἔρχεσθαι, πορεύεσθαι and ποιεῖν - are all single moiety words, so they don't need special word order constructions to make their meaning moieties clear.]
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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 » May 5th, 2017, 2:40 pm
Sorry to ask an obvious question so late, but is it generally recognised that there are two speech styles in Greek? When I explain my observation that there are vocabulary sets for each of the speech styles, am I building on existing knowledge, or should I be pointing out the speech styles too. I saw the posting on split focus and assumed that the dual speech styles were familiar enough, even if not known in that way. Apart from understanding how the moieties work in subordinate and relative clauses, Paul seemed to get the speech styles easily enough, if not tne moietied. The dual speech styles of Greek are pretty obvious, right, or is this another οὐκ οἶδα τι λέγεις topic? I wonder whether I walked too fast here?
Both the dual speech styles and their associated vocabulary are such basic features of the language, I'm sure they will come up again soon if people are not ready for them yet.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
37 posts
4
Return to “Word Meanings”
Board index
All times are UTC-04:00
Delete all board cookies
The team
Contact us
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
GZIP: Off
moieties
Re: moieties
B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
Skip to content
Quick links
FAQ
Login
Register
Board index Greek Language and Linguistics Word Meanings
The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
37 posts
3
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
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)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
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)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
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)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
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)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
Shirley Rollinson
Posts: 300
Joined: June 4th, 2011, 6:19 pm
Location: New Mexico
Contact: Contact Shirley Rollinson
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
Top
37 posts
3
Return to “Word Meanings”
Board index
All times are UTC-04:00
Delete all board cookies
The team
Contact us
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
GZIP: Off
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
Skip to content
Quick links
FAQ
Login
Register
Board index Greek Language and Linguistics Word Meanings
The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
37 posts
3
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
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)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
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)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
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)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
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)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
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/
Top
Shirley Rollinson
Posts: 300
Joined: June 4th, 2011, 6:19 pm
Location: New Mexico
Contact: Contact Shirley Rollinson
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
Top
37 posts
3
Return to “Word Meanings”
Board index
All times are UTC-04:00
Delete all board cookies
The team
Contact us
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
GZIP: Off
Re: moieties
B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
Skip to content
Quick links
FAQ
Login
Register
Board index Greek Language and Linguistics Word Meanings
The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
37 posts
2
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 4th, 2017, 2:43 pm
In your framework, is moiety lexically determined? Do all words have moeity, or do you see this as a property of verbs?
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
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 4th, 2017, 2:45 pm
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 10:26 am
I think I'm getting the gist of what you are seeing, Stephen. I wonder if I could understand it better by contrasting the Greek moities with English. Koine would say it like this..., an Aussie would say it like this... Yes, give it a name. Why not?
I think that it is worth investigating and if necessary categorising words acurately into either or both of the moieties, to help both readers and translators. Let's see where this goes.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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 4th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 2:43 pm
In your framework, is moiety lexically determined? Do all words have moeity, or do you see this as a property of verbs?
At first, following the model of English (and Greek textbooks) I thought that abstractness and concreteness was a property of nouns. Pretty soon, it became clear that it was lexically determined, and it crossed boundaries between word classes and displayed an abstract and concrete differentiation pattern in a way that English doesn't. Unlike word like ἀρχή word be
There seem to be words that belong strictly one or the other moiety, and those that mean something different in the context of one or the other FWIW, since κλῆρος was the first word that I happened to notice that with, it is my own reference example. But saying "a κλῆρος-type" word is not going to make sense to others.
I don't think that all words are marked as belonging to one group or the other. It may be that the distinction is only maintained in some forms of writing. It is not as clear-cut as the shadow always precedes the man.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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 8th, 2017, 2:49 pm
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 10:26 am
Yes, give it a name. Why not?
The most suitable name would be something based on "speech styles". The word "moiety" could refer to the abstract and specific groups of words in the lexicon. It is not really a law, I think, but an observable phenomenon. Because there are two, a word like "two-fold", "double" or "binary" might fit, and because of the way that they follow each other in turn, then "alternating" might be good too.
Looking at it from the point of view of collocation of meaning, one might be able to say that abstract meanings and specific meanings are collocated into alternating phrases. In some cases those meanings are carried by the same word, and in other cases by different words.
Here is a short passage from Aelian, De natura animalium. It very clearly illustrates the features of the structure.
Κλαυδίου Αἰλιανοῦ, Περὶ Ζῴων Ἰδιότητος 7.7 wrote:
κόραξ δὲ ἐπιτρόχως φθεγγόμενος καὶ κρούων τὰς πτέρυγας καὶ κροτῶν αὐτάς,
And the crow (that we see) glibly uttering its sound and clapping its wings together and rattling them
Some general information about crows
ὅτι χειμὼν ἔσται κατέγνω πρῶτος.
(It) first knows that there will be a storm.
A specific statement
κόραξ δὲ αὖ καὶ κορώνη καὶ κολοιὸς δείλης ὀψίας εἰ φθέγγοιντο,
And the crow and what's more both the shearwater and the jackdaw, if they make their sounds throughout the late afternoon
General statement
χειμῶνος ἔσεσθαί τινα ἐπιδημίαν διδάσκουσι.
They instruct one that throughout winter
Specific point.
κολοιοὶ δὲ ἱερακίζοντες, ὡς ἐκεῖνος λέγει, καὶ πετόμενοι πῆ μὲν ἀνωτέρω πῆ δὲ κατωτέρω,
When shearwaters fly like hawks, as Aristotle says, and they (are seen to be) flying somewhere up higher and somewhere else down lower
Broad general statement.
κρυμὸν καὶ ὑετὸν δηλοῦσι.
Frost and rain are signified.
Specific statement
κορώνη δὲ ἐπὶ δείπνου ὑποφθεγγομένη ἡσυχῆ,
When the shearwater calling quitely in muffled tones at dinner time
General setting.
ἐς τὴν ὑστεραίαν εὐδίαν παρακαλεῖ.
It is calling the later fine weather to come (ie and share the meal).
Specific point.
φανέντες δὲ ὄρνιθες πολλοὶ μὲν τὸν ἀριθμόν,
When birds are visible, being many in number
λευκοὶ δὲ τὴν χρόαν,
and white in colour
General statement
χειμὼν ὅτι ἔσται πολὺς ἐκδιδάσκουσι.
They are indicating that there will be a great storm.
Specific point
νῆτται δὲ καὶ αἴθυιαι πτερυγίζουσαι
When ducks and (another type of) shearwater (at least a diving bird) flutter their wings as if to fly,
General statement
πνεῦμα δηλοῦσιν ἰσχυρόν.
They are indicating that there will be a strong wind.
Specific detail
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Paul-Nitz
Posts: 428
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Paul-Nitz » April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
A name for the phenomenon: "General-Specific Coupling"
In the example below, am I seeing what you are describing, Stephen?
Matthew 6:24-26
GENERAL Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει.
[“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.]
SPECIFIC οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ.
[You cannot serve both God and Money. ]
SPECIFIC Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν· μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], μηδὲ τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε.
[“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear.]
GENERAL οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἐνδύματος;
[Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?]
GENERAL ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά·
[Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.]
SPECIFIC οὐχ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν;
[Are you not much more valuable than they?]
I think English thinking and language likes expressing thoughts (especially propositions) in terms of a contrast.
“I think this and this is true. But consider this in contrast.”
English usually uses a conjunction or adverb to mark the connectors mark the contrast: but, however, although, still, be-that-as-it-may, that said, etc.
Maybe Greek thinking and language likes expressing thoughts in a back and forth pattern between Specific and General. If so, it does not mark this with a conjunction. Maybe it marks it with asyndeton (the lack of any conjunction). In the verses above, you'll find asyndeton at the middle of each pair.
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Top
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 9th, 2017, 4:20 pm
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
A name for the phenomenon: "General-Specific Coupling"
In terms of the structre in which it occurs that is fine as a name. I introduced that passage from Aelian, because participial general statements are where every body already recognises the two-fold structure of Greek stylistic practice. What I am saying is that if one looks at the same pattern in the language, in something like
Luke 7:38 wrote:
ἤρξατο βρέχειν τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ τοῖς δάκρυσιν, καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς ἐξέμασσεν, καὶ κατεφίλει τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ.
Then the same pattern appears based on word choices, like this:
ἤρξατο βρέχειν (contextual / general word) τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ τοῖς δάκρυσιν,
καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς ἐξέμασσεν (specific),
καὶ κατεφίλει (a specific act) τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ,
καὶ ἤλειφεν (specific small context word) τῷ μύρῳ.
Here the first phrase uses contextualising language, and the following three use specific language.
[As an aside, (ie not part of the explanation arising from Jonathan's request for explanation), there are of course two other layers of beauty here in these words. First, the stylistic shifts are well joined. The dative of agency at the end of the first contextual phrase is picked up by the dative of agency at the beginning of the first (antiphonal) specific phrase. The shared subject τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ has a similar function between the following two lines. Seccouplets of the phrases move from the least specific to the most specific element in order of introduction.The verb ἤρξατο βρέχειν is a pseudo-modal (periphrastic) construction giving us the overal context for what follows, the next is the feet (in the Byzantine rendition at least) telling us what part was moistened (wettened), and then the αὐτοῦ further specifies the ownership (belonging) of the feet, finally, and most specifically in its phrase, the means are ("is" in English terms) specified.
To state that again, from another perspective, the choice of vocabulary alerts us to the fact that we are in the contextualising or specifying phrase, and within the phrase, the order is according to the change in the degree of generality to specificity that the author wants to present.]
The word βρέχειν (high tendency) / βροχή (exclusively) occurs in contextualising statements in the New Testament, ie usually in contextualising phrases, and ἐκμάσσειν (in New Testament contexts at least) occurs in the second phrase of couplets. In the Aelian passage above ὑετὸν δηλοῦσι are used in the second phrase of the couplet, rather than βροχή.
The type of kissing suggested by καταφίλειν is more extensive and involved than another word might suggest, and within New Testament contexts it occurs in specific phrases.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
A name for the phenomenon: "General-Specific Coupling"
In the example below, am I seeing what you are describing, Stephen?
Judge for yourself.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
Matthew 6:24-26
GENERAL Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει.
[“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.]
SPECIFIC οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ.
[You cannot serve both God and Money. ]
So far as the internal structure is concerned, hating and loving are more contextual actions than the devotion or despising, ie it is within the context of loving that devotion happens, and within the context of hating that one despises. There seems to be a certain degree of honourific movement of God to the broader context earlier elements of a phrase. God is a universal being, and mamon tends to occur near the end of phrases.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
SPECIFIC Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν· μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], μηδὲ τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε.
[“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear.]
GENERAL οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἐνδύματος;
[Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?]
μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν (contextualising statement)
τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], (specific points)
μηδὲ (μεριμνᾶτε understood) τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν (contextualising statement)
τί ἐνδύσησθε. (specific point)
οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἐνδύματος;
Life is a much bigger thing than food, and clothes are worn because of the needs of our bodies.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
GENERAL ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά·
[Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.]
To βλέπειν requires time and mental effort. As with Aelian's use of birds in the contextualising speech style phrases, πετεινόν "flying creatures", seems to be a contextualising wprd, but actually it seems to be used in either - ie, it is not a specifically marked word. σπείρειν, θερίζειν and συνάγειν (in the active or mediopassive of self advantage) are all small context / specific. ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά· While τρέφειν is a word that belongs to the specific moiety in the lexicon, the order of the phrase goes from the conceptually broadest to the conceptually most specific ideas.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
SPECIFIC οὐχ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν;
[Are you not much more valuable than they?]
Perhaps this is a statement on its own, or there may be no words here, only grammar.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
In the verses above, you'll find asyndeton at the middle of each pair.
As you look further, there will be things between the phrases.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Paul-Nitz
Posts: 428
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Paul-Nitz » April 10th, 2017, 10:11 am
Stephen,
So, is this accurate? In the Matt 6:24-26 selection, I was looking for a back and forth pattern of thoughts and seeing coupling of general-specific statements. You are seeing the coupling of general-specific within statements based on the quality of the words used.
Paul
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Top
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 10th, 2017, 11:24 am
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 10th, 2017, 10:11 am
Stephen,
So, is this accurate? In the Matt 6:24-26 selection, I was looking for a back and forth pattern of thoughts and seeing coupling of general-specific statements. You are seeing the coupling of general-specific within statements based on the quality of the words used.
Paul
Yes. Some of them at least.
If you would like to continue discussions, we will also see that some words determine their sense accordong to context, there is a regular pattern of style-shifting according to voice, the θη- are almost outside the system, and that the discourse markers and relative clauses change the pattern (as you have seen in the difference between your analysis and mine already and in other ways too).
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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, 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.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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, 4:47 am
Again on the naming, "How speech style affects / determines choices in synonymy." might work as a description, so that could be incorporated into the naming process.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
37 posts
2
Return to “Word Meanings”
Board index
All times are UTC-04:00
Delete all board cookies
The team
Contact us
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
GZIP: Off
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
Skip to content
Quick links
FAQ
Login
Register
Board index Greek Language and Linguistics Word Meanings
The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
37 posts
2
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 4th, 2017, 2:43 pm
In your framework, is moiety lexically determined? Do all words have moeity, or do you see this as a property of verbs?
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
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 4th, 2017, 2:45 pm
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 10:26 am
I think I'm getting the gist of what you are seeing, Stephen. I wonder if I could understand it better by contrasting the Greek moities with English. Koine would say it like this..., an Aussie would say it like this... Yes, give it a name. Why not?
I think that it is worth investigating and if necessary categorising words acurately into either or both of the moieties, to help both readers and translators. Let's see where this goes.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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 4th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 2:43 pm
In your framework, is moiety lexically determined? Do all words have moeity, or do you see this as a property of verbs?
At first, following the model of English (and Greek textbooks) I thought that abstractness and concreteness was a property of nouns. Pretty soon, it became clear that it was lexically determined, and it crossed boundaries between word classes and displayed an abstract and concrete differentiation pattern in a way that English doesn't. Unlike word like ἀρχή word be
There seem to be words that belong strictly one or the other moiety, and those that mean something different in the context of one or the other FWIW, since κλῆρος was the first word that I happened to notice that with, it is my own reference example. But saying "a κλῆρος-type" word is not going to make sense to others.
I don't think that all words are marked as belonging to one group or the other. It may be that the distinction is only maintained in some forms of writing. It is not as clear-cut as the shadow always precedes the man.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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 8th, 2017, 2:49 pm
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 10:26 am
Yes, give it a name. Why not?
The most suitable name would be something based on "speech styles". The word "moiety" could refer to the abstract and specific groups of words in the lexicon. It is not really a law, I think, but an observable phenomenon. Because there are two, a word like "two-fold", "double" or "binary" might fit, and because of the way that they follow each other in turn, then "alternating" might be good too.
Looking at it from the point of view of collocation of meaning, one might be able to say that abstract meanings and specific meanings are collocated into alternating phrases. In some cases those meanings are carried by the same word, and in other cases by different words.
Here is a short passage from Aelian, De natura animalium. It very clearly illustrates the features of the structure.
Κλαυδίου Αἰλιανοῦ, Περὶ Ζῴων Ἰδιότητος 7.7 wrote:
κόραξ δὲ ἐπιτρόχως φθεγγόμενος καὶ κρούων τὰς πτέρυγας καὶ κροτῶν αὐτάς,
And the crow (that we see) glibly uttering its sound and clapping its wings together and rattling them
Some general information about crows
ὅτι χειμὼν ἔσται κατέγνω πρῶτος.
(It) first knows that there will be a storm.
A specific statement
κόραξ δὲ αὖ καὶ κορώνη καὶ κολοιὸς δείλης ὀψίας εἰ φθέγγοιντο,
And the crow and what's more both the shearwater and the jackdaw, if they make their sounds throughout the late afternoon
General statement
χειμῶνος ἔσεσθαί τινα ἐπιδημίαν διδάσκουσι.
They instruct one that throughout winter
Specific point.
κολοιοὶ δὲ ἱερακίζοντες, ὡς ἐκεῖνος λέγει, καὶ πετόμενοι πῆ μὲν ἀνωτέρω πῆ δὲ κατωτέρω,
When shearwaters fly like hawks, as Aristotle says, and they (are seen to be) flying somewhere up higher and somewhere else down lower
Broad general statement.
κρυμὸν καὶ ὑετὸν δηλοῦσι.
Frost and rain are signified.
Specific statement
κορώνη δὲ ἐπὶ δείπνου ὑποφθεγγομένη ἡσυχῆ,
When the shearwater calling quitely in muffled tones at dinner time
General setting.
ἐς τὴν ὑστεραίαν εὐδίαν παρακαλεῖ.
It is calling the later fine weather to come (ie and share the meal).
Specific point.
φανέντες δὲ ὄρνιθες πολλοὶ μὲν τὸν ἀριθμόν,
When birds are visible, being many in number
λευκοὶ δὲ τὴν χρόαν,
and white in colour
General statement
χειμὼν ὅτι ἔσται πολὺς ἐκδιδάσκουσι.
They are indicating that there will be a great storm.
Specific point
νῆτται δὲ καὶ αἴθυιαι πτερυγίζουσαι
When ducks and (another type of) shearwater (at least a diving bird) flutter their wings as if to fly,
General statement
πνεῦμα δηλοῦσιν ἰσχυρόν.
They are indicating that there will be a strong wind.
Specific detail
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Paul-Nitz
Posts: 428
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Paul-Nitz » April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
A name for the phenomenon: "General-Specific Coupling"
In the example below, am I seeing what you are describing, Stephen?
Matthew 6:24-26
GENERAL Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει.
[“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.]
SPECIFIC οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ.
[You cannot serve both God and Money. ]
SPECIFIC Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν· μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], μηδὲ τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε.
[“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear.]
GENERAL οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἐνδύματος;
[Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?]
GENERAL ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά·
[Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.]
SPECIFIC οὐχ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν;
[Are you not much more valuable than they?]
I think English thinking and language likes expressing thoughts (especially propositions) in terms of a contrast.
“I think this and this is true. But consider this in contrast.”
English usually uses a conjunction or adverb to mark the connectors mark the contrast: but, however, although, still, be-that-as-it-may, that said, etc.
Maybe Greek thinking and language likes expressing thoughts in a back and forth pattern between Specific and General. If so, it does not mark this with a conjunction. Maybe it marks it with asyndeton (the lack of any conjunction). In the verses above, you'll find asyndeton at the middle of each pair.
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Top
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 9th, 2017, 4:20 pm
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
A name for the phenomenon: "General-Specific Coupling"
In terms of the structre in which it occurs that is fine as a name. I introduced that passage from Aelian, because participial general statements are where every body already recognises the two-fold structure of Greek stylistic practice. What I am saying is that if one looks at the same pattern in the language, in something like
Luke 7:38 wrote:
ἤρξατο βρέχειν τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ τοῖς δάκρυσιν, καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς ἐξέμασσεν, καὶ κατεφίλει τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ.
Then the same pattern appears based on word choices, like this:
ἤρξατο βρέχειν (contextual / general word) τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ τοῖς δάκρυσιν,
καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς ἐξέμασσεν (specific),
καὶ κατεφίλει (a specific act) τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ,
καὶ ἤλειφεν (specific small context word) τῷ μύρῳ.
Here the first phrase uses contextualising language, and the following three use specific language.
[As an aside, (ie not part of the explanation arising from Jonathan's request for explanation), there are of course two other layers of beauty here in these words. First, the stylistic shifts are well joined. The dative of agency at the end of the first contextual phrase is picked up by the dative of agency at the beginning of the first (antiphonal) specific phrase. The shared subject τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ has a similar function between the following two lines. Seccouplets of the phrases move from the least specific to the most specific element in order of introduction.The verb ἤρξατο βρέχειν is a pseudo-modal (periphrastic) construction giving us the overal context for what follows, the next is the feet (in the Byzantine rendition at least) telling us what part was moistened (wettened), and then the αὐτοῦ further specifies the ownership (belonging) of the feet, finally, and most specifically in its phrase, the means are ("is" in English terms) specified.
To state that again, from another perspective, the choice of vocabulary alerts us to the fact that we are in the contextualising or specifying phrase, and within the phrase, the order is according to the change in the degree of generality to specificity that the author wants to present.]
The word βρέχειν (high tendency) / βροχή (exclusively) occurs in contextualising statements in the New Testament, ie usually in contextualising phrases, and ἐκμάσσειν (in New Testament contexts at least) occurs in the second phrase of couplets. In the Aelian passage above ὑετὸν δηλοῦσι are used in the second phrase of the couplet, rather than βροχή.
The type of kissing suggested by καταφίλειν is more extensive and involved than another word might suggest, and within New Testament contexts it occurs in specific phrases.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
A name for the phenomenon: "General-Specific Coupling"
In the example below, am I seeing what you are describing, Stephen?
Judge for yourself.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
Matthew 6:24-26
GENERAL Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει.
[“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.]
SPECIFIC οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ.
[You cannot serve both God and Money. ]
So far as the internal structure is concerned, hating and loving are more contextual actions than the devotion or despising, ie it is within the context of loving that devotion happens, and within the context of hating that one despises. There seems to be a certain degree of honourific movement of God to the broader context earlier elements of a phrase. God is a universal being, and mamon tends to occur near the end of phrases.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
SPECIFIC Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν· μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], μηδὲ τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε.
[“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear.]
GENERAL οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἐνδύματος;
[Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?]
μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν (contextualising statement)
τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], (specific points)
μηδὲ (μεριμνᾶτε understood) τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν (contextualising statement)
τί ἐνδύσησθε. (specific point)
οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἐνδύματος;
Life is a much bigger thing than food, and clothes are worn because of the needs of our bodies.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
GENERAL ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά·
[Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.]
To βλέπειν requires time and mental effort. As with Aelian's use of birds in the contextualising speech style phrases, πετεινόν "flying creatures", seems to be a contextualising wprd, but actually it seems to be used in either - ie, it is not a specifically marked word. σπείρειν, θερίζειν and συνάγειν (in the active or mediopassive of self advantage) are all small context / specific. ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά· While τρέφειν is a word that belongs to the specific moiety in the lexicon, the order of the phrase goes from the conceptually broadest to the conceptually most specific ideas.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
SPECIFIC οὐχ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν;
[Are you not much more valuable than they?]
Perhaps this is a statement on its own, or there may be no words here, only grammar.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 9th, 2017, 9:35 am
In the verses above, you'll find asyndeton at the middle of each pair.
As you look further, there will be things between the phrases.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Paul-Nitz
Posts: 428
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Paul-Nitz » April 10th, 2017, 10:11 am
Stephen,
So, is this accurate? In the Matt 6:24-26 selection, I was looking for a back and forth pattern of thoughts and seeing coupling of general-specific statements. You are seeing the coupling of general-specific within statements based on the quality of the words used.
Paul
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Top
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 10th, 2017, 11:24 am
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑
April 10th, 2017, 10:11 am
Stephen,
So, is this accurate? In the Matt 6:24-26 selection, I was looking for a back and forth pattern of thoughts and seeing coupling of general-specific statements. You are seeing the coupling of general-specific within statements based on the quality of the words used.
Paul
Yes. Some of them at least.
If you would like to continue discussions, we will also see that some words determine their sense accordong to context, there is a regular pattern of style-shifting according to voice, the θη- are almost outside the system, and that the discourse markers and relative clauses change the pattern (as you have seen in the difference between your analysis and mine already and in other ways too).
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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, 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.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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, 4:47 am
Again on the naming, "How speech style affects / determines choices in synonymy." might work as a description, so that could be incorporated into the naming process.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
37 posts
2
Return to “Word Meanings”
Board index
All times are UTC-04:00
Delete all board cookies
The team
Contact us
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
GZIP: Off
Re: moieties
B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
Skip to content
Quick links
FAQ
Login
Register
Board index Greek Language and Linguistics Word Meanings
The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
37 posts
1
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Stephen Hughes » April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pm
Greek typically reads like this:
Amenities are provided for customers' convenience. You can piss, shit and spit there.
Being educated in Greek meant being able to speak in alternating moieties.
The Greek lexicon (word-set) is divided into three categories. There are those words which belong in the first moiety, those that belong in the second, and those that are used in either moiety. Words that are used in either moiety are typically used in that moiety with a significance appropriate to that moiety.
The moieties of the Greek lexicon are two-fold because there are two of them. They are structured because the first moiety precedes the second.
The characteristic of the first moiety is that it deals with the abstract, while the characteristic of the second is that it deals with the concrete.
All reference works that do not differentiate words into their respective moieties are inadequate.
We are grateful to the Aboriginal elders past and present the custodians of our Australian indigenous languages and culture, who have preseved their languages under the most terrible circumstances, that allow us to compare and see the beauty of the Greek language in ways that are not readily obvious to people of other cultural backgrounds.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pm
All reference works that do not differentiate words into their respective moieties are inadequate.
If moeity means group here, and you are drawing on some well-established classification, pointing to that would be helpful.
If you believe that the Greek lexicon has a particular set of well-defined groups that must be distinguished, could you please describe them precisely, explain how you can distinguish them, and give some evidence that you have distinguished them correctly?
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
Paul-Nitz
Posts: 428
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Paul-Nitz » April 4th, 2017, 5:43 am
It seems moiety has to do with the toilety.
Seriously, sounds fascinating. School us, Stephen.
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Top
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 4th, 2017, 6:07 am
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pm
All reference works that do not differentiate words into their respective moieties are inadequate.
If moeity means group here, and you are drawing on some well-established classification, pointing to that would be helpful.
It is an anthropological word. I am derivibg it specifically from its use in describing Australian Aboriginal kinship, and hence language usage patterns. There is no specific correlation between Aboriginal language usage patterns and the way that Greek is used, but it was at the time that I was Australian Aboriginal languages and cultures that I first realised the systematic nature of the Greek that I was also reading each day. Aboriginal languages are the possession of the tribe, and it is a privilage when anthropologists and liguistists study the languages, it by the permission of the elders of the tribe. If you were to study Yolngu for example, you need to first undertake to respect the language. The second reason is that terms like "social register" and "dialect", which are more familiar also carry so much other baggage.
The features of discourse styles in English, or in the avoidance relationships of Aboriginal society are not not the same as they are in Greek. English tends to express relative social power, while in Aboriginal society, people conform themselves to one or other of the pre-defined styles. In the way of conforming to predefined styles, Greek is similar. The two-fold nature of open and avoidance relationships in Aboriginal society is similar to Greek, but not the nature of what the two are. Avoidance style in Aboriginal languages, as the name suggests, avoids mentioning things specifically, and may require the use of specific words and vocabulary, while joking style allows familiar even to the point of ribald comments to be made without a sense of shame. Within a particular social relationship, members of Australian Aboriginal society speak in the appropriate style exclusively.
Greek has a similar division into the vague and the direct, except that Greek is structured into an alternating pattern, with the discourse markers affecting which moiety of the language is going to be used. That is why the subject of this thread includes the word "structured".
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
If you believe that the Greek lexicon has a particular set of well-defined groups that must be distinguished, could you please describe them precisely, explain how you can distinguish them, and give some evidence that you have distinguished them correctly?
Would you like a Coke or fries with that?
Seriously, though, if this is accepted, then it will take decades before it is well defined, for now let's avoid anything that sounds like, "Prove to us that you are not wrong." "Prove that you don't have mistakes." That mode of questioning is a road to war that I would like to keep away from. We already know that you value logical proofs as a means of finding truths, while I think that logical proof is only needed of somebody needs to be convinced of something not obvious, and that if truth is not self-evident, then it is not truth. At the end of what I am going to say, you will say that you are not convinced, and I will say that I was explaining not convincing. To forestall repeating that cycle again, I propose the following.
If you (or anybody) would like to know about this, then enter into a creative dialogue. I think that "explain how you [ie "I"] can distinguish them" is a good starting point.
The easy answer is that you can't, because you don't know what they are. If you knew what they were, then you wouldn't need to dustinguish, only recognise them. If the starting point was easy, then we woukd have all learnt it from about week 5, but we didn't. So, where to begin?
Have a look at the first section of the story of the prodigal son.
Luke 15:11-13 wrote:
11Εἶπεν δέ, Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱούς·
12 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ νεώτερος αὐτῶν τῷ πατρί, Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας. Καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον. 13 Καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας συναγαγὼν ἅπαντα ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς ἀπεδήμησεν εἰς χώραν μακράν, καὶ ἐκεῖ διεσκόρπισεν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ, ζῶν ἀσώτως.
Where is the most striking synonym? It can be phrasal or a single word. Where is the authour saying the same thing twice?
Well, οὐσία and βίος are two, δίδωμι τινι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος and διαιρέω might be another pair.
What are the distinctive words?
A few of them might be συνάγω, ἀποδημέω, διασκορπίζω, ζήω and ἀσώτως.
The basis for distinguishing which of the moieties the synonyms belong to is the associations of the distinctive words.
Have a look through συνάγω.
Matthew 12:30 wrote:
καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ, σκορπίζει.
Who is the ὁ μὴ συνάγων? It could be anybody.
Matthew 25:24 wrote:
Κύριε, ἔγνων σε ὅτι σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος, θερίζων ὅπου οὐκ ἔσπειρας, καὶ συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισας·
Here the γιγνώσκω introduces a general statement, while θερίζω, σπείρω, συνάγω and διασκορπίζω are specific concrete actions.
Matthew 26:3-4 wrote:
Τότε συνήχθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τοῦ λεγομένου Καϊάφα, 4 καὶ συνεβουλεύσαντο ἵνα τὸν Ἰησοῦν δόλῳ κρατήσωσιν καὶ ἀποκτείνωσιν.
Here in the passive voice, συνάγομαι sets the general context for what will follow and belongs to the abstract moiety. Voice seemps to be a way to switch between moieties. We know that κρατέω and ἀποκτείνω belong to the concrete / specific moiety, but for συμβουλεύω there is not enough NT evidence to categorise it.
Let me jog on for a moment, before coming back and plodding through those opening phrases again.
14 Δαπανήσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα, ἐγένετο λιμὸς ἰσχυρὸς κατὰ τὴν χώραν ἐκείνην, καὶ αὐτὸς ἤρξατο ὑστερεῖσθαι.
Genitives (or even nominatives) absolute are amazing things, functioning as one of the contextualising statements.
Based on Luke 14:28 [Τίς γὰρ ἐξ ὑμῶν, ὁ θέλων (concrete moiety) πύργον (concrete moiety) οἰκοδομῆσαι (concrete moiety), (contextualising statement) οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει (abstract moiety) τὴν δαπάνην (by association an abstract moiety word too), εἰ ἔχει τὰ εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν; (concrete moiety word).] δαπανάω is an abstract moiety word, ie that it was a rather long-term and involved process (cf. the widow and physicians).
Words on the vicinity of these types of theme-setting ἐγένετο statements, don't follow the moiety rules as expected. λιμὸς is a concrete / specific moiety word, but the statement functions as if it were abstracted.
15 Καὶ πορευθεὶς ἐκολλήθη ἑνὶ τῶν πολιτῶν τῆς χώρας ἐκείνης · καὶ ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ βόσκειν χοίρους.
The word πορεύομαι tends to belong to the abstract moiety, and the sense of this ἐκολλήθη is not a literal attachment, so functioning in the abstract moiety with an appropriate meaning is probable. We know our old friend πέμπω is from the concrete moiety, so that marks the phrase as concrete moiety.
16 Καὶ ἐπεθύμει γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν κερατίων ὧν ἤσθιον οἱ χοῖροι· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου αὐτῷ.
ἐπεθύμει putting this "he day dreamed of" makes the following statement abstract. Relative clauses seem to follow similar, but different rules, and are generally abstract in sense.
The verb δίδωμι is a bit big to have been fully looked at yet, but in contradistinction to the abstract phrase, I think it is concrete here.
17 Εἰς ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἐλθὼν εἶπεν, Πόσοι μίσθιοι τοῦ πατρός μου περισσεύουσιν ἄρτων, ἐγὼ δὲ λιμῷ ἀπόλλυμαι·
Πόσος and περισσεύω here are both abstract words. ἄρτος is not a bun in his hand or mouth, but in his imagination. On the contrary, he felt the hunger and was quite literally being destroyed.
18 ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου, καὶ ἐρῶ αὐτῷ, Πάτερ, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου·
19 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἄξιος κληθῆναι υἱός σου· ποίησόν με ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
πορεύομαι - see above
The πρὸς - εἰς distinction here is a tendency, rather than a rule in the abstract - concrete moieties distinction.
κληθῆναι in the abstract sense of "be known as"
ποίησόν is typically a concrete word.
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
could you please describe them precisely,
It seems that there are two of what I have called moieties, and that words are either strictly one or the other, or they can be either - with a different meaning according to the one they are in.
As this is off the limit of maps in grammar, I think it is too early to make very strict definitions.
This is too long to risk losing on digital technology, so I'll break this post.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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 4th, 2017, 6:44 am
Luke 15:11-13 wrote:
11Εἶπεν δέ, Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱούς·
12 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ νεώτερος αὐτῶν τῷ πατρί, Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας. Καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον. 13 Καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας συναγαγὼν ἅπαντα ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς ἀπεδήμησεν εἰς χώραν μακράν, καὶ ἐκεῖ διεσκόρπισεν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ, ζῶν ἀσώτως.
I suspect that since this son speaks to his father in only the concrete moiety here (Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας.) he is being characterised in some way. There is another instance in Acts, but sorry I can't recall where, in one of the court contexts where only the abstract is used, but in general things are differentiated and split.
οὐσία in this sense of "money" is limited in scope. In the sense of God's essence, it might be abstract.
The verb ζήω belongs in the concrete moiety, while the βιός family belong in the abstract.
Our word διαιρέω, as we can see from 1 Corinthians 12:11 διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται. is abstract moiety, while βούλομαι is concrete moiety.
ἐπιβάλλω is a word in a very specific legal sense.
That raises the issue of versification. It seems that the break of 12 to 13 is not logical. It seems that the abstract statement is at the end of 12, and the concrete is in 13.
Καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον. 13 Καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας συναγαγὼν ἅπαντα ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς ἀπεδήμησεν εἰς χώραν μακράν,
ἀπεδημέω is usually concrete moiety, but in a participle (dare one use adverbial participle) form, it can function in the abstract moiety, if it has a non-specific reference.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 4th, 2017, 7:20 am
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 6:07 am
Greek has a similar division into the vague and the direct, except that Greek is structured into an alternating pattern, with the discourse markers affecting which moiety of the language is going to be used. That is why the subject of this thread includes the word "structured".
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
If you believe that the Greek lexicon has a particular set of well-defined groups that must be distinguished, could you please describe them precisely, explain how you can distinguish them, and give some evidence that you have distinguished them correctly?
Would you like a Coke or fries with that?
Seriously, though, if this is accepted, then it will take decades before it is well defined, for now let's avoid anything that sounds like, "Prove to us that you are not wrong." "Prove that you don't have mistakes." That mode of questioning is a road to war that I would like to keep away from.
It sounds like you are in fairly early stages of a research project, trying out some ideas. It is possible that Greek is like these aboriginal languages in this way, it is also possible that it is not.
Here's something I would appreciate for the sake of the forum, though: could you please give this theory a name, and talk about it as something in early stages that you are working on? Or perhaps, "here's how I see this passage..."
If you make authoritative claims that this is just how the Greek language works, and someone else makes authoritative claims that it is not, that's precisely the kind of war that is useless. Propose a possible distinction, give a few examples, let us discuss them to see if we think what you are saying makes sense or not. Treat it as exploratory, not as proven fact. Especially in the beginner's forum.
I'll take a look at your examples later on and work through them.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
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 4th, 2017, 9:18 am
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 7:20 am
If you make authoritative claims that this is just how the Greek language works, and someone else makes authoritative claims that it is not, that's precisely the kind of war that is useless.
I am not American. I am not sensitive to dogmatism and I don't mind authoritative sounding statements. I your ears it may sound absolute or dogmatic and that may seem to challenge the ideal of personal something, but you are misunderstanding my tone in that case.
All ideas that are expressed by anybody, here (or anywhere), whether personally, or hiding behind the thoughts of others who we agree with (agree with us) are personal claims.
From my point of view, when you jump in after I make a comment, and moderate (non-technical sense) what you see as dogmatism, with "intuition" or other comments, that makes me seem dogmatic to others. I would prefer if you found a different way to deal with your cultural sensitivities. I am not making comments within the same cultural framework. I'm happy to share thoughts with you about Greek, but not to share your cultural orientations. Besides that, as you can see from my signature, I don't necessarily expect anybody to follow what I am saying anyway, but if they do, that is great.
I speak from the position of my constantly developing understanding of the Greek, including from this higher and lower register (abstract and concrete moiety) understanding. In effect, you are suggesting I should point out the difference between new ideas and old, calling attention to what has been recently acquired and which others may not have accepted. I'd rather remain simple. It is the position of the other to differentiate themselves from me, not me to differentiate myself from myself. I have seen differences in synomy for many years, but only last year understood just how systematic it all is.
I had hesitated in posting an actual answer to Alan's question, for the sake of not getting flagged, and asked for explanations for choosing to speak from a different perspective. But since he (Alan and in the composition threads Wes) are my regular dialogue partners, I feel can speak to them like my lectures told us their own understandings, beyond what was in the canonical grammars, and how students worth their salt expressed their own views too. As you can see the explanation in Alan's thread is quite rounded. It is not in the initial stages, but of course there are still more questions than answers.
You probably don't remember, but one of your earlier, "How can I prove ... ?" statements is actually the basis for this. The way you can use your data quierying and programming skills to prove this is to look at collocations in phrases. You can start with, say, πεμπω and then tag every word that occurs in a phrase with πέμπω as also being concrete moiety, then take all the words that collocate in the concrete moiety can likewise form the basis for a search and so on to perhaps three levels of removal from the original seed. Then reseed the model with some other of the words that belong to the concrete moiety. The data from that will yeild about 50 words per seeding. Words resulting from those collocational searches can be compared, and those with a higher than average degree of correlation can form the seeds for another search. That should easily get to between 600 - 800 words. By searching with already recignised abstract seeds too, two data sets can be created. The intersection of the data sets will be the usual common "grammatical " words and those words which exist in both moieties, but whise means alternates. Those overlapping words are expected to have two distinct meanings in the existing dictionaries. Alligning the meanings of either moiety to the meanings in the dictionary will allow an extra degree of intelligence to AI translation program algorithms.
The feature is not only in Australian Aboriginal languages. It is in Chinese and English too. In English, the higher registers are populated by latinate words, and the lower registers by Anglosaxon words, as in the pseudo-Greek at the head of this thread. Greek has a monolingual wordstock, which has made recognition of the moieties more difficult. Chinese uses different structures and words. The hint that I got from studying Aboriginal languages was that direct and indirect could be differentiated, and that words could (in some cases) come from common wordstock.
Another step beyond identification of which part of the lexicon belongs to which moiety, is to understand their origins. This alternating pattern may be a phenomenon that arose in the Koine, or it may have arisen earlier during the classical period. (It certainly does not seem to be present in the Modern Greek.) One possibility is that words that are marked as being typical of prose ended up in one of the moieties, while those of verse origin ended up in the other, alternatively, there may not have been such a correlation between the structure of Attic Greek and the Koine. It may be that the earlier structure was one of most-abstract to least-abstract within phrases without the alternating structure, or it may be that the double structure is also early. If the double structure were to be found to be a hellenistic innovation, that would be a plus because it marks an innovation, and if it is not an innovation, then it would be an indication that Hellenistic literature had maintained an earlier feature of the language. Testing those would not be difficult, but all in due time, and as a second perhaps confirmational step.
Beyond what I can currently say with any certainty is that I expect to find that certain discourse markers will introduce (or allow the inclusion) of one or other moiety. I expect that patterns in tense choice and sequencing will both be a feature of a moiety at a phrase level, and will allow in some circumstances the inclusion of a word from one moiety in the other. It may be that the structure of moiety usage in genres within the text will be different.
I am not actually doing (or even am in a position to do) research. I live at the edge of a city, which I can walk to other side of and back in a day, and am ten minutes drive in three directions from agricultural land. There are no suitable libraries here. Two other problems are that I am only academically qualified to enter a research degree in Ancient History (Egyptology), and that most other people have as much trouble understanding what I am talking about as people here do, so what would be the point of writing anyway. Ha ha.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Paul-Nitz
Posts: 428
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Paul-Nitz » April 4th, 2017, 10:26 am
Well done to both Robie and Hughes. You had a little conflict and didn't shy from giving your opinion.
Stephen, your comments on culture are interesting and jibe with what I've seen from visits back to the USA. It's a newish phenomenon, I think. From my sensibilities, Jonathan's moderation wasn't needed, but then moderating isn't easy and most would err on the side of not saying something when they should.
I think I'm getting the gist of what you are seeing, Stephen. I wonder if I could understand it better by contrasting the Greek moities with English. Koine would say it like this..., an Aussie would say it like this... Yes, give it a name. Why not?
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 4th, 2017, 10:31 am
From my perspective, you have already proposed some ways of interpreting specific texts above, and working through them here and asking questions would be a useful way of trying to understand your framework. I plan to do that, and hope others will chime in. I suspect we will wind up trying to understand the distinctions you are making and what explanatory value they have, then apply them to other texts to see if they promote a consistent interpretation. Because your framework is quite different from the mainstream frameworks, this will take some time.
In the main forum, I think the right way to go is to show us what you are looking at in your thinking, in some detail, let us ask questions, and try to understand together. Some time this year, I expect that I will provide a free query interface to our treebanks with a tutorial to help people learn how to query them. In the meantime, I'll do queries on things that interest me, but I have to be careful not to get too distracted because I have my own agenda to drive. And your explanations of specific passages are sufficient to give us something to chew on.
In the Beginner's Forum, I would like to avoid answers based on this framework, which they cannot find written up in any text, and which is not yet proven. Especially since it is currently quite difficult to understand. Beginners who come in with simple questions are sometimes getting flooded, and have no idea which answers are considered mainstream.
You raise a few other things that I think we should discuss in a more private setting.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
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 4th, 2017, 1:07 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 10:31 am
..., you have already proposed some ways of interpreting specific texts above, and working through them here and asking questions would be a useful way of trying to understand your framework. I plan to do that, and hope others will chime in. I suspect we will wind up trying to understand the distinctions you are making and what explanatory value they have, then apply them to other texts to see if they promote a consistent interpretation. Because your framework is quite different from the mainstream frameworks, this will take some time.
There is another one similar to Matthew 1:20 in this verse in the Byzantine rendition:
Καὶ ἰδού, ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ἀνεβόησεν, λέγων, Διδάσκαλε, δέομαί σου, ἐπιβλέψαι ἐπὶ τὸν υἱόν μου, ὅτι μονογενής ἐστίν μοι·
The μονογενής, however, does not clearly belong to either the abstract or concrete moiety.
What I am wondering at present is whether the categorisation of abstract - concrete groups of vocabulary affects the presence or absence of the article with infinitives, and how ἵνα phrases are structured. The question of participles and infinitives is still quite open.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
37 posts
1
Return to “Word Meanings”
Board index
All times are UTC-04:00
Delete all board cookies
The team
Contact us
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
GZIP: Off
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
Skip to content
Quick links
FAQ
Login
Register
Board index Greek Language and Linguistics Word Meanings
The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
37 posts
1
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Stephen Hughes » April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pm
Greek typically reads like this:
Amenities are provided for customers' convenience. You can piss, shit and spit there.
Being educated in Greek meant being able to speak in alternating moieties.
The Greek lexicon (word-set) is divided into three categories. There are those words which belong in the first moiety, those that belong in the second, and those that are used in either moiety. Words that are used in either moiety are typically used in that moiety with a significance appropriate to that moiety.
The moieties of the Greek lexicon are two-fold because there are two of them. They are structured because the first moiety precedes the second.
The characteristic of the first moiety is that it deals with the abstract, while the characteristic of the second is that it deals with the concrete.
All reference works that do not differentiate words into their respective moieties are inadequate.
We are grateful to the Aboriginal elders past and present the custodians of our Australian indigenous languages and culture, who have preseved their languages under the most terrible circumstances, that allow us to compare and see the beauty of the Greek language in ways that are not readily obvious to people of other cultural backgrounds.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pm
All reference works that do not differentiate words into their respective moieties are inadequate.
If moeity means group here, and you are drawing on some well-established classification, pointing to that would be helpful.
If you believe that the Greek lexicon has a particular set of well-defined groups that must be distinguished, could you please describe them precisely, explain how you can distinguish them, and give some evidence that you have distinguished them correctly?
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
Paul-Nitz
Posts: 428
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Paul-Nitz » April 4th, 2017, 5:43 am
It seems moiety has to do with the toilety.
Seriously, sounds fascinating. School us, Stephen.
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Top
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 4th, 2017, 6:07 am
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 2:45 pm
All reference works that do not differentiate words into their respective moieties are inadequate.
If moeity means group here, and you are drawing on some well-established classification, pointing to that would be helpful.
It is an anthropological word. I am derivibg it specifically from its use in describing Australian Aboriginal kinship, and hence language usage patterns. There is no specific correlation between Aboriginal language usage patterns and the way that Greek is used, but it was at the time that I was Australian Aboriginal languages and cultures that I first realised the systematic nature of the Greek that I was also reading each day. Aboriginal languages are the possession of the tribe, and it is a privilage when anthropologists and liguistists study the languages, it by the permission of the elders of the tribe. If you were to study Yolngu for example, you need to first undertake to respect the language. The second reason is that terms like "social register" and "dialect", which are more familiar also carry so much other baggage.
The features of discourse styles in English, or in the avoidance relationships of Aboriginal society are not not the same as they are in Greek. English tends to express relative social power, while in Aboriginal society, people conform themselves to one or other of the pre-defined styles. In the way of conforming to predefined styles, Greek is similar. The two-fold nature of open and avoidance relationships in Aboriginal society is similar to Greek, but not the nature of what the two are. Avoidance style in Aboriginal languages, as the name suggests, avoids mentioning things specifically, and may require the use of specific words and vocabulary, while joking style allows familiar even to the point of ribald comments to be made without a sense of shame. Within a particular social relationship, members of Australian Aboriginal society speak in the appropriate style exclusively.
Greek has a similar division into the vague and the direct, except that Greek is structured into an alternating pattern, with the discourse markers affecting which moiety of the language is going to be used. That is why the subject of this thread includes the word "structured".
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
If you believe that the Greek lexicon has a particular set of well-defined groups that must be distinguished, could you please describe them precisely, explain how you can distinguish them, and give some evidence that you have distinguished them correctly?
Would you like a Coke or fries with that?
Seriously, though, if this is accepted, then it will take decades before it is well defined, for now let's avoid anything that sounds like, "Prove to us that you are not wrong." "Prove that you don't have mistakes." That mode of questioning is a road to war that I would like to keep away from. We already know that you value logical proofs as a means of finding truths, while I think that logical proof is only needed of somebody needs to be convinced of something not obvious, and that if truth is not self-evident, then it is not truth. At the end of what I am going to say, you will say that you are not convinced, and I will say that I was explaining not convincing. To forestall repeating that cycle again, I propose the following.
If you (or anybody) would like to know about this, then enter into a creative dialogue. I think that "explain how you [ie "I"] can distinguish them" is a good starting point.
The easy answer is that you can't, because you don't know what they are. If you knew what they were, then you wouldn't need to dustinguish, only recognise them. If the starting point was easy, then we woukd have all learnt it from about week 5, but we didn't. So, where to begin?
Have a look at the first section of the story of the prodigal son.
Luke 15:11-13 wrote:
11Εἶπεν δέ, Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱούς·
12 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ νεώτερος αὐτῶν τῷ πατρί, Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας. Καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον. 13 Καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας συναγαγὼν ἅπαντα ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς ἀπεδήμησεν εἰς χώραν μακράν, καὶ ἐκεῖ διεσκόρπισεν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ, ζῶν ἀσώτως.
Where is the most striking synonym? It can be phrasal or a single word. Where is the authour saying the same thing twice?
Well, οὐσία and βίος are two, δίδωμι τινι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος and διαιρέω might be another pair.
What are the distinctive words?
A few of them might be συνάγω, ἀποδημέω, διασκορπίζω, ζήω and ἀσώτως.
The basis for distinguishing which of the moieties the synonyms belong to is the associations of the distinctive words.
Have a look through συνάγω.
Matthew 12:30 wrote:
καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ, σκορπίζει.
Who is the ὁ μὴ συνάγων? It could be anybody.
Matthew 25:24 wrote:
Κύριε, ἔγνων σε ὅτι σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος, θερίζων ὅπου οὐκ ἔσπειρας, καὶ συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισας·
Here the γιγνώσκω introduces a general statement, while θερίζω, σπείρω, συνάγω and διασκορπίζω are specific concrete actions.
Matthew 26:3-4 wrote:
Τότε συνήχθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τοῦ λεγομένου Καϊάφα, 4 καὶ συνεβουλεύσαντο ἵνα τὸν Ἰησοῦν δόλῳ κρατήσωσιν καὶ ἀποκτείνωσιν.
Here in the passive voice, συνάγομαι sets the general context for what will follow and belongs to the abstract moiety. Voice seemps to be a way to switch between moieties. We know that κρατέω and ἀποκτείνω belong to the concrete / specific moiety, but for συμβουλεύω there is not enough NT evidence to categorise it.
Let me jog on for a moment, before coming back and plodding through those opening phrases again.
14 Δαπανήσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα, ἐγένετο λιμὸς ἰσχυρὸς κατὰ τὴν χώραν ἐκείνην, καὶ αὐτὸς ἤρξατο ὑστερεῖσθαι.
Genitives (or even nominatives) absolute are amazing things, functioning as one of the contextualising statements.
Based on Luke 14:28 [Τίς γὰρ ἐξ ὑμῶν, ὁ θέλων (concrete moiety) πύργον (concrete moiety) οἰκοδομῆσαι (concrete moiety), (contextualising statement) οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει (abstract moiety) τὴν δαπάνην (by association an abstract moiety word too), εἰ ἔχει τὰ εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν; (concrete moiety word).] δαπανάω is an abstract moiety word, ie that it was a rather long-term and involved process (cf. the widow and physicians).
Words on the vicinity of these types of theme-setting ἐγένετο statements, don't follow the moiety rules as expected. λιμὸς is a concrete / specific moiety word, but the statement functions as if it were abstracted.
15 Καὶ πορευθεὶς ἐκολλήθη ἑνὶ τῶν πολιτῶν τῆς χώρας ἐκείνης · καὶ ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ βόσκειν χοίρους.
The word πορεύομαι tends to belong to the abstract moiety, and the sense of this ἐκολλήθη is not a literal attachment, so functioning in the abstract moiety with an appropriate meaning is probable. We know our old friend πέμπω is from the concrete moiety, so that marks the phrase as concrete moiety.
16 Καὶ ἐπεθύμει γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν κερατίων ὧν ἤσθιον οἱ χοῖροι· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου αὐτῷ.
ἐπεθύμει putting this "he day dreamed of" makes the following statement abstract. Relative clauses seem to follow similar, but different rules, and are generally abstract in sense.
The verb δίδωμι is a bit big to have been fully looked at yet, but in contradistinction to the abstract phrase, I think it is concrete here.
17 Εἰς ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἐλθὼν εἶπεν, Πόσοι μίσθιοι τοῦ πατρός μου περισσεύουσιν ἄρτων, ἐγὼ δὲ λιμῷ ἀπόλλυμαι·
Πόσος and περισσεύω here are both abstract words. ἄρτος is not a bun in his hand or mouth, but in his imagination. On the contrary, he felt the hunger and was quite literally being destroyed.
18 ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου, καὶ ἐρῶ αὐτῷ, Πάτερ, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου·
19 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἄξιος κληθῆναι υἱός σου· ποίησόν με ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
πορεύομαι - see above
The πρὸς - εἰς distinction here is a tendency, rather than a rule in the abstract - concrete moieties distinction.
κληθῆναι in the abstract sense of "be known as"
ποίησόν is typically a concrete word.
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
could you please describe them precisely,
It seems that there are two of what I have called moieties, and that words are either strictly one or the other, or they can be either - with a different meaning according to the one they are in.
As this is off the limit of maps in grammar, I think it is too early to make very strict definitions.
This is too long to risk losing on digital technology, so I'll break this post.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
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 4th, 2017, 6:44 am
Luke 15:11-13 wrote:
11Εἶπεν δέ, Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱούς·
12 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ νεώτερος αὐτῶν τῷ πατρί, Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας. Καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον. 13 Καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας συναγαγὼν ἅπαντα ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς ἀπεδήμησεν εἰς χώραν μακράν, καὶ ἐκεῖ διεσκόρπισεν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ, ζῶν ἀσώτως.
I suspect that since this son speaks to his father in only the concrete moiety here (Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας.) he is being characterised in some way. There is another instance in Acts, but sorry I can't recall where, in one of the court contexts where only the abstract is used, but in general things are differentiated and split.
οὐσία in this sense of "money" is limited in scope. In the sense of God's essence, it might be abstract.
The verb ζήω belongs in the concrete moiety, while the βιός family belong in the abstract.
Our word διαιρέω, as we can see from 1 Corinthians 12:11 διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται. is abstract moiety, while βούλομαι is concrete moiety.
ἐπιβάλλω is a word in a very specific legal sense.
That raises the issue of versification. It seems that the break of 12 to 13 is not logical. It seems that the abstract statement is at the end of 12, and the concrete is in 13.
Καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον. 13 Καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας συναγαγὼν ἅπαντα ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς ἀπεδήμησεν εἰς χώραν μακράν,
ἀπεδημέω is usually concrete moiety, but in a participle (dare one use adverbial participle) form, it can function in the abstract moiety, if it has a non-specific reference.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 4th, 2017, 7:20 am
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 6:07 am
Greek has a similar division into the vague and the direct, except that Greek is structured into an alternating pattern, with the discourse markers affecting which moiety of the language is going to be used. That is why the subject of this thread includes the word "structured".
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2017, 10:19 pm
If you believe that the Greek lexicon has a particular set of well-defined groups that must be distinguished, could you please describe them precisely, explain how you can distinguish them, and give some evidence that you have distinguished them correctly?
Would you like a Coke or fries with that?
Seriously, though, if this is accepted, then it will take decades before it is well defined, for now let's avoid anything that sounds like, "Prove to us that you are not wrong." "Prove that you don't have mistakes." That mode of questioning is a road to war that I would like to keep away from.
It sounds like you are in fairly early stages of a research project, trying out some ideas. It is possible that Greek is like these aboriginal languages in this way, it is also possible that it is not.
Here's something I would appreciate for the sake of the forum, though: could you please give this theory a name, and talk about it as something in early stages that you are working on? Or perhaps, "here's how I see this passage..."
If you make authoritative claims that this is just how the Greek language works, and someone else makes authoritative claims that it is not, that's precisely the kind of war that is useless. Propose a possible distinction, give a few examples, let us discuss them to see if we think what you are saying makes sense or not. Treat it as exploratory, not as proven fact. Especially in the beginner's forum.
I'll take a look at your examples later on and work through them.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
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 4th, 2017, 9:18 am
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 7:20 am
If you make authoritative claims that this is just how the Greek language works, and someone else makes authoritative claims that it is not, that's precisely the kind of war that is useless.
I am not American. I am not sensitive to dogmatism and I don't mind authoritative sounding statements. I your ears it may sound absolute or dogmatic and that may seem to challenge the ideal of personal something, but you are misunderstanding my tone in that case.
All ideas that are expressed by anybody, here (or anywhere), whether personally, or hiding behind the thoughts of others who we agree with (agree with us) are personal claims.
From my point of view, when you jump in after I make a comment, and moderate (non-technical sense) what you see as dogmatism, with "intuition" or other comments, that makes me seem dogmatic to others. I would prefer if you found a different way to deal with your cultural sensitivities. I am not making comments within the same cultural framework. I'm happy to share thoughts with you about Greek, but not to share your cultural orientations. Besides that, as you can see from my signature, I don't necessarily expect anybody to follow what I am saying anyway, but if they do, that is great.
I speak from the position of my constantly developing understanding of the Greek, including from this higher and lower register (abstract and concrete moiety) understanding. In effect, you are suggesting I should point out the difference between new ideas and old, calling attention to what has been recently acquired and which others may not have accepted. I'd rather remain simple. It is the position of the other to differentiate themselves from me, not me to differentiate myself from myself. I have seen differences in synomy for many years, but only last year understood just how systematic it all is.
I had hesitated in posting an actual answer to Alan's question, for the sake of not getting flagged, and asked for explanations for choosing to speak from a different perspective. But since he (Alan and in the composition threads Wes) are my regular dialogue partners, I feel can speak to them like my lectures told us their own understandings, beyond what was in the canonical grammars, and how students worth their salt expressed their own views too. As you can see the explanation in Alan's thread is quite rounded. It is not in the initial stages, but of course there are still more questions than answers.
You probably don't remember, but one of your earlier, "How can I prove ... ?" statements is actually the basis for this. The way you can use your data quierying and programming skills to prove this is to look at collocations in phrases. You can start with, say, πεμπω and then tag every word that occurs in a phrase with πέμπω as also being concrete moiety, then take all the words that collocate in the concrete moiety can likewise form the basis for a search and so on to perhaps three levels of removal from the original seed. Then reseed the model with some other of the words that belong to the concrete moiety. The data from that will yeild about 50 words per seeding. Words resulting from those collocational searches can be compared, and those with a higher than average degree of correlation can form the seeds for another search. That should easily get to between 600 - 800 words. By searching with already recignised abstract seeds too, two data sets can be created. The intersection of the data sets will be the usual common "grammatical " words and those words which exist in both moieties, but whise means alternates. Those overlapping words are expected to have two distinct meanings in the existing dictionaries. Alligning the meanings of either moiety to the meanings in the dictionary will allow an extra degree of intelligence to AI translation program algorithms.
The feature is not only in Australian Aboriginal languages. It is in Chinese and English too. In English, the higher registers are populated by latinate words, and the lower registers by Anglosaxon words, as in the pseudo-Greek at the head of this thread. Greek has a monolingual wordstock, which has made recognition of the moieties more difficult. Chinese uses different structures and words. The hint that I got from studying Aboriginal languages was that direct and indirect could be differentiated, and that words could (in some cases) come from common wordstock.
Another step beyond identification of which part of the lexicon belongs to which moiety, is to understand their origins. This alternating pattern may be a phenomenon that arose in the Koine, or it may have arisen earlier during the classical period. (It certainly does not seem to be present in the Modern Greek.) One possibility is that words that are marked as being typical of prose ended up in one of the moieties, while those of verse origin ended up in the other, alternatively, there may not have been such a correlation between the structure of Attic Greek and the Koine. It may be that the earlier structure was one of most-abstract to least-abstract within phrases without the alternating structure, or it may be that the double structure is also early. If the double structure were to be found to be a hellenistic innovation, that would be a plus because it marks an innovation, and if it is not an innovation, then it would be an indication that Hellenistic literature had maintained an earlier feature of the language. Testing those would not be difficult, but all in due time, and as a second perhaps confirmational step.
Beyond what I can currently say with any certainty is that I expect to find that certain discourse markers will introduce (or allow the inclusion) of one or other moiety. I expect that patterns in tense choice and sequencing will both be a feature of a moiety at a phrase level, and will allow in some circumstances the inclusion of a word from one moiety in the other. It may be that the structure of moiety usage in genres within the text will be different.
I am not actually doing (or even am in a position to do) research. I live at the edge of a city, which I can walk to other side of and back in a day, and am ten minutes drive in three directions from agricultural land. There are no suitable libraries here. Two other problems are that I am only academically qualified to enter a research degree in Ancient History (Egyptology), and that most other people have as much trouble understanding what I am talking about as people here do, so what would be the point of writing anyway. Ha ha.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
Paul-Nitz
Posts: 428
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Paul-Nitz » April 4th, 2017, 10:26 am
Well done to both Robie and Hughes. You had a little conflict and didn't shy from giving your opinion.
Stephen, your comments on culture are interesting and jibe with what I've seen from visits back to the USA. It's a newish phenomenon, I think. From my sensibilities, Jonathan's moderation wasn't needed, but then moderating isn't easy and most would err on the side of not saying something when they should.
I think I'm getting the gist of what you are seeing, Stephen. I wonder if I could understand it better by contrasting the Greek moities with English. Koine would say it like this..., an Aussie would say it like this... Yes, give it a name. Why not?
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Top
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3399
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact: Contact Jonathan Robie
Re: The two-fold and structured moieties of Koine Greek.
Post by Jonathan Robie » April 4th, 2017, 10:31 am
From my perspective, you have already proposed some ways of interpreting specific texts above, and working through them here and asking questions would be a useful way of trying to understand your framework. I plan to do that, and hope others will chime in. I suspect we will wind up trying to understand the distinctions you are making and what explanatory value they have, then apply them to other texts to see if they promote a consistent interpretation. Because your framework is quite different from the mainstream frameworks, this will take some time.
In the main forum, I think the right way to go is to show us what you are looking at in your thinking, in some detail, let us ask questions, and try to understand together. Some time this year, I expect that I will provide a free query interface to our treebanks with a tutorial to help people learn how to query them. In the meantime, I'll do queries on things that interest me, but I have to be careful not to get too distracted because I have my own agenda to drive. And your explanations of specific passages are sufficient to give us something to chew on.
In the Beginner's Forum, I would like to avoid answers based on this framework, which they cannot find written up in any text, and which is not yet proven. Especially since it is currently quite difficult to understand. Beginners who come in with simple questions are sometimes getting flooded, and have no idea which answers are considered mainstream.
You raise a few other things that I think we should discuss in a more private setting.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Top
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 4th, 2017, 1:07 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 4th, 2017, 10:31 am
..., you have already proposed some ways of interpreting specific texts above, and working through them here and asking questions would be a useful way of trying to understand your framework. I plan to do that, and hope others will chime in. I suspect we will wind up trying to understand the distinctions you are making and what explanatory value they have, then apply them to other texts to see if they promote a consistent interpretation. Because your framework is quite different from the mainstream frameworks, this will take some time.
There is another one similar to Matthew 1:20 in this verse in the Byzantine rendition:
Καὶ ἰδού, ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ἀνεβόησεν, λέγων, Διδάσκαλε, δέομαί σου, ἐπιβλέψαι ἐπὶ τὸν υἱόν μου, ὅτι μονογενής ἐστίν μοι·
The μονογενής, however, does not clearly belong to either the abstract or concrete moiety.
What I am wondering at present is whether the categorisation of abstract - concrete groups of vocabulary affects the presence or absence of the article with infinitives, and how ἵνα phrases are structured. The question of participles and infinitives is still quite open.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Top
37 posts
1
Return to “Word Meanings”
Board index
All times are UTC-04:00
Delete all board cookies
The team
Contact us
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
GZIP: Off