In the Mail — the “Oops” Edition

So a couple weeks ago I requested a review copy from Crossway of this book:

• Publisher: Crossway/Good News Publishers
• Author: Poythress, Vern Sheridan
• ISBN-10: 1433501791 | ISBN-13: 9781433501791
• Binding: Paperback
  
• List Price: $20.00

I’ve been pretty curious about this new book. I like Poythress quite a bit. Granted, I also disagree rather often, but I have a very high level of respect for him. Besides the translation & gender stuff that I’ve disagreed with, I’ve read a few of his linguistic articles and they’re been rather good.

Unfortunately, I didn’t receive this book in the mail.

“But wait,” you say, “you just need to be patient. I’ll come.”

Yeah that’s the thing. I did receive a book in the mail from cross way. Just not this one. The package arrived. The invoice listed In the Beginning was the Word on the first line, but the book was not there. No. And instead, I received this book:

Jesus Driven Ministry by Ajith Fernando

The book does look interesting. Just not for me. I’ve e-mailed Crossway and am currently waiting to hear back from them.

In the Mail

Many thanks to Brill for providing me with a copy of Stéphanie J Bakker’s The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek: A Functional Analysis of the Order and Articulation of NP Constituents in Herodotus (ASCP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2009).

I actually received it a couple weeks ago, but I’ve been too busy to post lately. I’m about half way through the book thus far and have thoroughly enjoyed it. The first half of the book is a discussion of word order within the noun phrase and the second half deals with the function of the Greek article within the noun phrase. Part II is particularly excellent and unmatched in the literature on Ancient Greek. You can expect a full two or three part review probably toward the end of December or early January.

Wow, this is a great book.

Accordance & Syntax

As someone who has a highly vested interest in syntax databases, I’m excited to hear David Lang say that Syntax databases will be coming to the next version of Accordance.

I will be giving a presentation at BibleTech: 2010 on the very subject of Syntax databases currently titled “Greek Syntax Databases: Retrospect & Prospects” in which I’ll examine, compare and critique the two currently available syntax databases: Opentext.org & Cascadia Syntax Graphs and then also (hopefully) present some of my own work on representing Greek syntax. Currently the abstract isn’t yet up, but this is a good summary. I’ve been hoping to do something like this for some time, so I’m looking forward to the conference. Much of my presentation has been brewing for at least 14 months, though very little has showed up here on my blog.

I definitely look forward to seeing what Accordance has to offer when they release their next version and may very well consider looking into getting it if I like what I see.

…and I’m always willing to do a review copy…

Random Sanskrit Post

This is definitely not about Greek, but I do know that there are readers out there who would be quite interested in this:

A COMPREHENSIVE INPUT METHOD FOR CLASSICAL SANSKRIT

It’s currently available for Mac & Windows.

So if you’ve desperately wanted to type in Sanskrit, but haven’t had the tools, now’s your chance!

Fanning at Eisenbrauns

Eisenbrauns currently has the hottest price on Fanning’s Verbal Aspect.

Greek and English Relative Clauses

Though both require relative clauses to begin with a relative pronoun, Greek and English are typologically distinct in that one employs the pronoun with the gap strategy (English) and the other only needs the pronoun (Greek): a man who Chris saw [GAP] vs. τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ μέλλω πίνειν (the cup that I am about to drink [no gap]).

The English Gap is implicitly necessary for our processing of the grammatical relation of relative pronouns (in this case the Object relation), whereas in Greek, grammatical relations are marked by morphology* rather than structural relations/word order.

*This is not to say that English doesn’t have some morphological marking occurring on it’s pronouns, but this morphology is not the central marker of grammatical relations. Grammatical relations are centrally marked by structural position within the clause. Hence when English speakers hear relative clauses they consciously notice the Gap position where the Object would typically appear.

Muraoka on ΚΕΦΑΛΗ in 2002 & 2009

The closest in 2009 edition (A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint) that Muraoka gets to defining κεφαλή as referring to a position of authority is this:

Definition #4: he who or that which plays a leading role.

And even then, the context of his entry makes it clear that “leading” refers to prominence not authority. The full entry for this sense looks like this:

4. he who or that which plays a leading role: in a societal group (?), Nu 1.2, 20; De 28:13, 44 (: : οὐρά ‘tail’); ~ὴν καὶ οὐράν, μέγαν καὶ μικρόν Is 9:14; (|| ἀρχή); ~ὴν καὶ οὐράν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος 19.15; κ. ἐθνῶν Ps 17.44 κ. γωνίας ‘corner-stone’ 117.22. b. principle city: Is 7.8 c. principle nation: Je 38.7.

.

First, note that “in a societal group” is considered as questionable by Muraoka (the “?”).

Let’s look at these cited examples more closely:

Numbers 1:2: Λάβετε ἀρχὴν πάσης συναγωγῆς υἱῶν Ισραηλ κατὰ συγγενείας αὐτῶν κατ̓ οἴκους πατριῶν αὐτῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἐξ ὀνόματος αὐτῶν κατὰ κεφαλὴν αὐτῶν, πᾶς ἄρσην

The Hebrew text reads, “head by head,” which the LXX translates as “κατὰ κεφαλὴν αὐτῶν.” And this may very well be a reasonable Greek translation of the Hebrew: “by their heads,” as in count them by their heads. And even if it refers to “heads of families,” is the emphasis on “heads of families” as leaders of families or “heads of families” as representatives of families? Which would be more likely with regard to a census?

Numbers 1:20 is identical to this.

Deuteronomy 28:13

καταστήσαι σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς κεφαλὴν καὶ μὴ εἰς οὐράν, καὶ ἔσῃ τότε ἐπάνω καὶ οὐκ ἔσῃ ὑποκάτω, ἐὰν ἀκούσῃς τῶν ἐντολῶν κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου, ὅσα ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον φυλάσσειν καὶ ποιεῖν

Here the context refers to Israel position among the nations. If they obey him, they will be the head (εἰς κεφαλὴν) not the tail (μὴ εἰς οὐράν). No authority here. Just Head/Body imagery. This image returns in 43-44:

ὁ προσήλυτος, ὅς ἐστιν ἐν σοί, ἀναβήσεται ἐπὶ σὲ ἄνω ἄνω, σὺ δὲ καταβήσῃ κάτω κάτω, 44 οὗτος δανιεῖ σοι, σὺ δὲ τούτῳ οὐ δανιεῖς, οὗτος ἔσται κεφαλή, σὺ δὲ ἔσῃ οὐρά.
The foreigner who is among you will go up against you, very high over you, but you will be brought down, very low. He will lend to you, but to him, you will not lend. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.

Authority? Or Social Status? Definitely the latter.

Isaiah 9:14: καὶ ἀφεῖλεν κύριος ἀπὸ Ισραηλ κεφαλὴν καὶ οὐράν, μέγαν καὶ μικρὸν ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ, 14 πρεσβύτην καὶ τοὺς τὰ πρόσωπα θαυμάζοντας( αὕτη ἡ ἀρχή) καὶ προφήτην διδάσκοντα ἄνομα( οὗτος ἡ οὐρά).
And the Lord will cut off from Israel the head and the tail, great and small in one day, elders and the τοὺς τὰ πρόσωπα θαυμάζοντας [?] (these are the head) and the prophets teaching falsely (these are the tail).

This one is a little more difficult – and I’m not sure how to translate τοὺς τὰ πρόσωπα θαυμάζοντας (literally: those who marvel before faces??? Not sure.). In any case, considering that “leader” is not a natural Greek meaning for the word and there’s nothing explicit in the text that would suggest “leader,” I’ll default against it for this one. But as always, comments on this one are welcome.

Isaiah 19:15: καὶ οὐκ ἔσται τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις ἔργον, ὃ ποιήσει κεφαλὴν καὶ οὐράν, ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος.
And there is no work for the Egyptians that they can do – head or tail, beginning or end.

Actually, this verse is rather suggestive that κεφαλὴ could potentially mean “beginning,” which is suspiciously similar to “source.” Semantically speaking, it’s only a very small metaphorical step.

Psalm 17:44 ῥύσῃ με ἐξ ἀντιλογιῶν λαοῦ, καταστήσεις με εἰς κεφαλὴν ἐθνῶν, λαός, ὃν οὐκ ἔγνων, ἐδούλευσέν μοι,
You will deliver me from the arguments of the people. You will appoint me as head of nations; a people whom I did not know, served me.

I’d say that this is our best candidate for “leader” we’ve seen yet, but thus far, one out of seven isn’t that great.

Psalm 117:22: λίθον, ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας
A stone that the builders rejected, this became as the head of the corner

Nope, nothing here. I’m not even sure why it’s listed in the “in a societal group” section…

This marks a distinct change from the 2002 edition of the lexicon, which looked like this:

What do you think? Is the change for the better or worse? Why?

What citations would you have included here that he leaves out?

Clippings: My New Favorite Feature in Logos 4

I love the new feature in Logos 4 called, “Clippings,” which basically makes it possible to gather content from a variety of books in the same place. As a result, I’ve developed in one location a variety of discussions of the Greek Verb.

Here’s what it looks like:

By clicking on the spot I’ve highlighted, you create a new clipping:

Ignoring the very poorly written quality of my annotation (it’s hard to write with a mouse), you can see what it’s possible to add emphasis with bold, italics, or underlining in your clippings after you’ve created a new Clippings File.

But more importantly is the fact that you can then add notes and comments to the clipping itself:

I’ve gone through about a dozen grammars like this so far. Some are better than others. Swetnam on Aspect is pretty good. My biggest concern is that his highly unusual use of terminology is only going to confuse students in the long run who continue their Greek studies. And for that reason, I wouldn’t recommend his particular discussion. Anyway, that’s beside the point. We’re talking about a software feature, not a grammatical category that’s only caused confusion over the past 20 decades.

Other cool features of “Clippings” include the ability to instantly get bibliographic info. If you click here:

The Clipping “flips around” and you see this:

And you can choose whatever style you want – though sometimes there are still issues to fix, but either way, the information is still there for your citation already.

Also, text formatting is easily available for both your notes as well as the clipping itself:

And these follow the typical shortcuts: ctrl-b for Bold, ctrl-i for italics, etc.

Finally, it’s possible to create multiple collections of clippings depending on what you’re working on.

And then name it whatever you want:

 

 

New Clippings Documents are also available via the File Menu:

So cool and so helpful for collecting and annotating your information.

Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology

Eerdmans just published:

Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology
Series: McMaster New Testament Studies
Stanley E. Porter (editor), Mark J. Boda (editor)

And I’m seriously considering requesting a review copy — though Eerdmans seems to be much more picky about who it sends review copies to. But I’ll probably give it a try.

At this point though, I’ll taking a rather standoff-ish stance regarding the book.It’s a book on translation. Right?

So why aren’t there any professional translators in the list of contributors.

Barbara Aland
Mark J. Boda
Philip Comfort
Alain Gignac
Edith M. Humphrey
Luke Timothy Johnson
Richard N. Longenecker
Matthew Brook O’Donnell
Stanley E. Porter
Maurice A. Robinson
Elsa Tamez
Francis Watson
Khiok-Khng (K. K.) Yeo

We’ve got theologians, text critics, NT scholars, OT scholars, but not translators. There is not a single scholar on this list whose central academic specialty is translation. Why couldn’t Mildred Larson have contributed? Ernst-August Gutt? Katherine Barnwell? John Callow? Peter Silzer? Ronald Sim? Peter Unseth? Ernst Wendland? Catherine Rountree?

Yeah, you get the idea.

Distinguishing Perfects

There are a variety of reasons why the English Perfect and the Greek Perfect must be distinguished in spite of their shared name and similarities.

Greek students are generally taught to use their intuition in terms of deciding whether to translate a Greek perfect with an English perfect or with an English present. But rarely (ever?) is there any discussion of how these two grammatical forms differ in their usage in a cross-linguistic sense. That is, the English Perfect can be used in the context X where the Greek Perfect would be infelicitous or ungrammatical.

Well today, I’m going to give you at least one way that I found about two weeks ago (I had to search for it to find it again). This assumes that the Greek of Joshua is relatively close enough to natural Greek that this is a valid usage. I haven’t had time to check other texts.

Joshua 13:8: ταῖς δὲ δύο φυλαῖς καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση, τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ, ἔδωκεν Μωυσῆς ἐν τῷ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου κατ̓ ἀνατολὰς ἡλίου, δέδωκεν αὐτὴν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου…
But to the two tribes and the half tribe of Manasseh, Reuben and Gad, Moses gave (an inheritance to them) in the land beyond the Jordan eastward. Moses the servant of the Lord gave them …

From there, it goes on to list the lands they received. What’s striking about this. Well for one, we see the Perfect’s move toward the Aorist, but we also see a significant way in which the Greek Perfect is very, very different from the English Perfect.

Moses is dead. Moses was dead when the book was written and Moses was dead when the events described here in chapter 13 transpired (assuming for the sake of argument they did – this is a linguistics blog not a history blog). The English perfect cannot be used with a subject the speaker knows to be deceased. The sentence:

*Moses the Lord’s servant gave them X.

is not felicitous in English.

And that, my friends, is one way in which the Greek and English Perfects are different. This sort of example is relatively easy to recognize intuitively when dong translation, but it is still helpful to recognize and understand the reason why you’ve used the English past perfective verb “gave” instead of the perfect. And that’s what I’m interested in here. The why of things.

UPDATE:

There is a pragmatic felicity condition on the use of the perfect: the subject of a Perfect sentence must be in a position to receive the participant property. Perfect sentences are infelicitous when this is not met. In the following well-known example the person referred to by the subject NP is not alive at the RT [Reference Time]. Consider (20), uttered in 1989.

(20) Einstein has lived in Princeton.

This sentence is grammatical but infelicitous when uttered at a time after the death of Eisten (Jespersen 1931:60), Chomsky (1970:85). We explain this in terms of the participant property. Einstein cannot bear the participant property in 1989, the time of the utterance of (20), and so it is pragmatically impossible to ascribe it to him. this is the force of the example. The felicity requirement, then, is reoughly as in (21):

(21) Felicity condition for the present Perfect
The person to which the subject nounphrase [sic] refers must be pragmatically able to bear the property ascribed to them.

The notion of ‘Current Relevant’ is sometimes invoked to explain the infelicity of sentences like this. (Jesphersen 1931: 47, 57, et seq; McCoard 1978, ch. 2).

Carlota Smith, The Parameter of Aspect (2nd ed.; Studies in Linguistics & Philosphy 43; Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1997), 108.

Also, I should note that an English Past Perfect, which is traditionally associated with the Greek Pluperfect would also be acceptable here: Moses had given…