Jerry:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jerry Shepherd <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Karl, > > > > … > > > > You said: "You have done what Ruth would say is confuse action with > function. > > > > "I already a few times covered how to recognize the difference using the > word 'swing' in English, now I’ll give an example from koiné Greek: > > > > "The action in παρακαλειν is to call aside. The function is why there is a > calling aside, and we find that it is used for instruction, scolding, > encouragement, upbraiding, and it’s the context that indicates for which > reason the person was called aside. The translator that translates > παρακαλειν into English has a problem—English doesn’t have the concept of > calling aside for all those purposes. If the translator merely translates > the action, that makes no sense in English. So he ends up translating the > function, the why the action was taken. > > > > "If, on the other hand, the intent of handling the text is merely to read > the text with the intent as far as possible 'to get inside the head' of an > ancient Greek, the reader will recognize that παρακαλειν does NOT mean to > instruct, to scold, to encourage, to upbraid, rather it’s an action that is > used to facilitate all these contexts and listing the action is often the > shorthand of referring to the reason for the action." > > > > Okay, Karl, here's a number of points in response. > > > > (1) If Ruth is lurking, hopefully she can clarify, but this distinction > you attribute to her between action and function is not one that she made. > That was your formulation in your attempt to capture her thought; she > never confirmed this, and probably because it didn't really express what > she was trying to say. She made a distinction between form and function, > and your distinction between action and function is not the same thing. > Of course it’s not the same thing! That’s why Ruth made a point of it. > > > (2) Your suggestion that I made a confusion between action and function is > not really correct. When you use these terms you are the one who is > making the confusion, and the confusion at least borders on confusing > linguistic and extralinguistic categories. > If you read the whole interchange between me and Ruth, I had not known that there is specific definitions for the terms “form” and ”function” within linguistics. So when I first tried to explain what I am do in lexicography, I used the terms in different ways that linguists do. Ruth corrected me on that. As a result, I coined a term “action” to emphasize what I think is important to recognize how a lexeme is used, and the way I have done so since I was young and have found useful in all languages I’ve studied. > Furthermore, "action" is not the term to use when trying to when trying > to capture the "main" idea of a particular lexeme, because it assumes the > lexeme is either a verb or a noun that names an action. Your distinction > does not cover nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc. > While you are right that it mainly affects verbs and nouns, it also fits adjectives, adverbs, etc. > > > (3) The proper linguistic distinction to make is not between action and > function, but rather between some kind of original "core" or "root" meaning > and function/usage in its occurrences in various contexts. What you are > trying to argue is that the original "core" meaning is somehow present in > all occurrences of the lexeme. > ????? > The problem you have here is that there is not a trained linguist in > the entire universe who would hold to that opinion. > This paragraph is a logical fallacy, namely the appeal to popularity. > > > (4) Your example of παρακαλειν is a case in point. In fact, > interestingly, you have picked up on an example that is used in linguistic > textbooks to disprove the very point you are trying to make. To be sure, > the verb is made up of two Greek words that, if translated literally, would > mean to "call aside" or "call beside or alongside." And I believe there > are a few places in the NT where that meaning might be present. But in > the grand majority of the verb's occurrences, that meaning is not present. > It simply means, in various contexts, to "ask," "plead," "comfort," "beg," > "encourage," etc. There is no problem for the translators, because, if > you were to "get inside the head of an ancient Greek," you would not find > them thinking that the word they were using or reading meant to "call > aside." For example, in Matt 8:31, the demons παρακαλειν Jesus to send > them into the herd of pigs. They are not calling Jesus aside. In Matt > 8:34, the people παρακαλειν Jesus to leave their region. They are not > calling Jesus aside. Lazarus is not "called aside" in Hades in Luke > 16:25; he is simply comforted. Rachel does not refuse to be "called > aside" in Matt 2:18; rather, she refuses to be παρακαλειν comforted. In > Acts 19:31, the officials of the province do not send a message to Paul > calling him aside, rather they "beg" (παρακαλειν) him not to venture into > the theater. And on and on in passage after passage. > This makes me think you have not read a word I’ve written. Or rather, you have latched on to a word or phrase that is a trigger to your thinking, and have not listened to the whole, rather just stopped listening to make your argument. > > > This is what Peter Cotterell and Max Turner say in their book, *Linguistics > and Biblical Interpretation*: > > > > "However much *parakaleo* looks as though it should mean 'to call someone > alongside to assist' (from *para* 'alongside' and *kaleo* 'to call')—and > it did once have this sense—in the New Testament period it means simply 'to > request', 'to encourage', or 'to cheer up'." > > > > It just isn't the case that every time an "ancient Greek" spoke, wrote, > read, or heard *parakaleo*, that they were somehow thinking "to call > aside." I believe that meaning might have been present in some of the > passages where *parakaleo* is perhaps used in the sense of "invite," but, > for the grand majority of instances, that idea is not present, either in > the text or in their thinking. > > > > Incidentally, Cotterell and Turner use this *parakaleo* example in a > section where they are discussing the etymological fallacy. I know in > the past you have denied that you are committing this fallacy; but, in > fact, your usage of *parakaleo* in support of your point is a textbook > example of the fallacy. > > > > So your Greek example doesn't work for Greek; your English example doesn't > work for English. And there is no reason to believe it would be any > different for Hebrew. > Your argument has missed the mark. > > > Blessings, > > > > Jerry > > Jerry Shepherd > Taylor Seminary > Edmonton, Alberta > [email protected] > > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
