Comments on: Deictics and directionality in the gospels

By: Deictics and directionality in the gospels-II « NT Discourse

Deictics and directionality in the gospels-II « NT Discourse — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:36:09 +0000

[...] last post on deictics and verbs of motion stemmed from running into a synoptic difference regarding the call [...]

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:53:55 +0000

Rod, I posted then comment, then pulled it because it was a reaction, one which I did not deem appropriate after some reflection. Your second comment clarifies my disagreement. What do you mean by distinguishing “the two senses of ἐρχομαι in English”? Are you concentrating on the translation problem that arises from mismatches in use between Greek and English motion verbs, or are you talking about the meaning of the verb in Greek? I disagree with the assertion in your first comment, though it will work as a basic explanation.

Carl’s point about compounded verbs, by which I am guessing prefixed prepositions is what he is referring to, is dead on. The point I will be making in this series of posts that we are too quick to apply a simple rule that solves the translation problem, and in doing so miss some important exegetical indicators in the text.

I had intended to go further in this post, but ran out of time. There are drafts of two others and a third that is outlined, but this answer will have to do for now.

By: Carl Conrad

Carl Conrad — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:15:14 +0000

I’m not quite sure what B-Greek discussion is being referred to here. What I’m reminded of is the passage in Aristophanes’ Frogs 11555-1168 where Aeschylus and Euripides (in Hades) are arguing over whether or not ἥκω and κατέρχομαι are or are not synonyms; now, having just checked κατέρχομαι in LSJ, I find its range of usage astounding. I really think that compounded verbs of motion are not too easily pinned down semantically; there’s also a tendency — as with superlatives — for aggregation of prefixes over time when the original compound has become synonymous with the simplex.

By: Rod Decker

Rod Decker — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:06:40 +0000

> you have just defined every verb of motion without a semantic distinction between them. That only works in first year.

That is way overstated. There are many other factors that are adequate to distinguish other verbs of motion. All my statement is intended to do is to distinguish the two senses of ἐρχομαι in English and I think it is adequate to do that without all the extra talk about deictic factors (which, yes, I know a bit about).

> B-Greek is having a discussion about the problem of such explanations.

Since I’m not privy to the b-greek discussion, I can’t comment further on that or address those concerns.

(I assume that the comment that I cited above will appear on the blog in due time; I received it by email, but it was not yet on the blog when I posted this.)

By: Rod Decker

Rod Decker — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:30:34 +0000

Hmmm. How about the short, simple version? “ἐρχομαι means to move from A to B, the translation (in English) depends on which end the writer is looking at.” I’ve yet to find a first year student who can’t understand that, nor one that finds a more complicated explanation helpful. I guess you have to have a degree in linguistics before that explanation ceases to be clear.

By: Carl Conrad

Carl Conrad — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:27:00 +0000

Steve, it’s not gobbledygook when you explain a term (clearly) that you don’t expect the reader to understand intuitively and also use it consistently; it’s gobbledygook only when you invent your own term which is not quite equivalent to someone’s else’s preferred term and don’t explain clearly what you intend by it. It’s not gobbledygook when you’re really talking to those of us who don’t live up there inside the (ivory) Tower of Babel.