Comments on: Markedness, Part 2

By: Grammar and Linguistics Discussion | for the Sake of Truth

Grammar and Linguistics Discussion | for the Sake of Truth — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:43:07 +0000

[...] Markedness, Part 2 [...]

By: Markedness, Part 3 « NT Discourse

Markedness, Part 3 « NT Discourse — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:56:28 +0000

[...] The approach allows complex sets of data to be broken down into simpler sets of relations. The second post covered the importance of differentiating marked from unmarked, whereby the unmarked or [...]

By: Rod Decker

Rod Decker — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:27:52 +0000

Hmmm. John may not have your best interests at heart Steve. Steel is a conductor…

Though it is true that one disagrees with respected grammarians with due caution!

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:46:49 +0000

Based on the interactions of the last week, I am quite happy to take my chances without a helmet! 1 Pet 3:15

By: John Lawless

John Lawless — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:27:27 +0000

I am only a third year Greek student about to graduate from Golden Gate Seminary. Yet, Steve I would offer one suggestion. When disagreeing with Dr. Wallace it might be adviseable to wear a steel helmet. It might come in handy if God should choose to strike you with lightning. LOL.

By: Paul O'Rear

Paul O'Rear — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:24:47 +0000

We say that quite a bit in the software industry, where it implies that you should be using the product you’re developing – regularly and often – so that you experience any pain that the end customer might feel before they do. (And therefore fix it!)

By: Daniel B. Wallace

Daniel B. Wallace — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:48:46 +0000

LOL! Steve, “eat your own dog food” might be a Texas expression, but I’ve never heard it. Of course, I’m not FROM Texas (genitive of source), though I do now live here.

By: Grammarians and Linguists studying Greek « ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ

Grammarians and Linguists studying Greek « ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:57:48 +0000

[...] Markedness Part II [...]

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 05:23:01 +0000

Dan wrote, “I think that you think I do believe that it can, however, when you say, “Again, I would attribute this stress to the adverbial info, not to the tense form” as though I did the latter.” I will own that one, you’re right. I just wish there was more ability to more closely associate the affect with the primary thing bringing about the affect. The greater this gap, the greater the probability for confusion. Thanks for helping me eat my own dog food ( a friend from Texas says this is a common saying down there). I ranted about the need to engage scholars on their own terms, not based on how they are not using my approach, and are thus wrong. Six months ago I could not have had nearly so coherent a discussion as now, so perhaps there is hope for continued improvement. I think that Carl deserves much credit in screwing my head on straight about some of these things, though I expect he probably tore some hair out along the way.

By: Daniel B. Wallace

Daniel B. Wallace — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:12:18 +0000

Steve, that’s an excellent response. I appreciate it very much. I think we’re pretty close to each other. We both agree that the verb form itself cannot stress ingressiveness. I think that you think I do believe that it can, however, when you say, “Again, I would attribute this stress to the adverbial info, not to the tense form” as though I did the latter. But where we disagree is here: it seems that you are restricting how an author can stress ingressiveness to only a couple of options. But if he chooses to be more succinct in his writing, he can also stress it. I think that the aorist tense, in combination with the lexeme, context, other grammatical features, genre can indeed be shaped by an author to stress ingressiveness. Secondly, I do find it helpful to think in such categories because to not do so is to miss, in my view, part of what the author is saying. At the same time, you may have offered a corrective to how I construct things: I noted in my grammar that an ingressive aorist stresses just the beginning of the act, while an ingressive imperfect stresses the beginning but also implies continuation. In that context, I was arguing that the aorist _in contrast to the imperfect_ stresses only the beginning. But I was not making statements about what the aorist’s primary function is, even when ingressive. This may require a bit more clarification on my part. Thanks again for the interaction.