ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ

So I come to the LXX of Joshua 10:19 and see:

ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ ἑστήκατε καταδιώκοντες ὀπίσω τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν.

I initially understood ἑστήκατε as a perfect indicative, which is exactly what it looks like. But then I saw that the NETS translates the word as an imperative, which actually makes significantly more sense in context. So then I began looking for information about perfect imperatives. I know, now, that on the rare occasion that they do occur they tend to be formed as periphrastics. But I also already knew there is a non-periphrastic in Ephesians 5:5: ἴστε. So, my question is this: when imperatives are formed via inflection, do they look like indicatives like we have with other periphrastics?

I’ve dug through Robertson as well as Moulton & Howard, but to no avail.

Thoughts? Comments?

UPDATE: It is an imperative: μὴ, which I should have noticed myself. The B-Greek list is awesome, both for real questions as well as for when my brain isn’t functioning.

Does anyone have any advice on publishing journal articles for graduate students?

That is to say, are there any journals who might be willing to accept articles that are

1. Written by a grad student?
2. Have relatively technical Greek grammar content?
3. And then also, what would be the best way to go about it?

Thoughts?

Comments?

Suggestions?

I have a few multi-post series brewing in my head, that it had occurred to me might be better done as journal articles, but I don’t know if it would be really possible.

For some time I’ve been rather surprised by how many people struggle to understand exactly what Aspect is.

Granted it took me looking at Aspect in three different languages before it really clicked, but it seems so obvious now, after the fact. Part of me wonders if they emphasis on Aspect with relation to discourse analysis that some have proposed is part of the problem: that is, students (and profs?) are having this idea of aspect and discourse prominence thrown at them at the same time as they struggle to understand what Aspect.

Another part of the problem is the different terminology used by different Greek grammars. Mounce’s grammar in particular definitely does not help students when they come to discussions in other texts. His terminology maybe closer to traditional English school grammar teaching, but it’s not going to help when you move to other books.

And so I’m curious. How well do you feel you understand what Aspect is?

update: it appears that all polldaddy polls are down right now. hopefully this will be fixed. Please come back and vote later, I’d appreciate it — or leave a comment here!

For sometime, I’ve been an advocate for people who do not know the original languages (& probably never will) to learn how to meaningfully look at and compare differences of translation, paragraphing, & formatting in using multiple translations rather than simply using a “literal” translation.

But it has been only recently that I’ve realized that many people don’t think such a thing is possible.

And so, I’ve created a poll here to see what you, my readers, think on this issue. I’d also be interested in your comments as well.

I’m particularly interested in the thoughts of those whose answers are based on experience in both practices — if such people exist, but everyone’s thoughts on this question are definitely welcome & encouraged.

It’s been quite obvious that I’ve had language change on my mind with reference to man vs. human and he vs. they for generics. I’ve written a couple posts now.

And I know that there are a variety of people out there who are convinced that the change is directly related to the feminist movement. My personal opinion on that one is 1) I doubt it and 2) so what? If the language has truly changed (and it has) then it’s too late to go back to man and he anyway. And I should that it’s too late to go back in a previous post on the subject where two late middle aged men quite clearly mistook a generic man for male-referring man — ironically, in the context of a book where that had at one point argued that English hasn’t changed (specifically, chapters 7-10 of the book, which you can find via the link above).

Now, I know there are a few people who read this blog who also have found this whole issue and debate rather interesting. I’d like to make it slightly more interesting by providing another real life comparison of language change in another language. This one is another attempt at forced language change, something that feminists have been charged with doing. But in this example, the group attempting to force change failed.

And so I ask: If we have two politically motivated language changes, why does one fail and the other succeed so much so that even those who fight the change accidentally fall into it?

And so, with that question in mind, I point you to: Ἡλληνιστεύκοντος byNick Nicholas and his post, Greek diglossia and how it isn’t. The thesis of the post is distinct from this discussion, but the content & history he provides basically begs for parallels to be drawn.

So why does one change succeed and the other fail?

Oxford University Press is apprehensive about publishing a paperback version of Fanning’s monograph Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek [Oxford Theological Monographs] because it was so expensive to produce initially and the demand hasn’t appeared to be very high.

Now I know that there are a number of other readers of my blog who are interested in Fanning’s book and I know that many of you have also expressed your regret about it’s price.

But I would appreciate it if you would be willing to vote in a poll saying whether you would be interested in purchasing Fanning’s book if it provided as a lower priced paperback edition rather than a $240 hardcover (paperback prints of Oxford Theological Monographs appear to be retail priced between $45 & $60), which is still somewhat high, but definitely, definitely more accessible for the average Joe – and I’m sure this is a book that the average Joe would love to have!

And please, if you voted, “YES” and mean it,  spread the word about this poll! I would like to get a significant number of votes & send the results to Oxford if possible. But I would need a good number of voters before I did that.

Why in the world should we be translating generics with a “generic” he or man when even the people who claim that English hasn’t changed accidentally misinterpret English generics as only having a male referent???

Does anyone have access to the journal Jian Dao?

For the life of me I cannot find it!

Would anyone who does have access be willing to scan and e-mail to me an article or two…?

I’ve finished two books that I plan on writing reviews for:

Grammatical and Exegetical Study of New Testament Verbs of Transference: A Case Frame Guide to Interpretation and Translation (Library of New Testament Studies) by Paul Danove

Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament: On the Exegetical Benefit of Grammatical Precision (New Testament Monographs) by Denny Burk

But I cannot decide which I should review first. The two books are very different animals in terms of method & focus – much of which can be recognized from the titles. But there is a significant relationship between them in that Burk makes some incredibly critical comments about Case Grammar, the linguistic framework that eventually morphed into Construction Grammar which Danove uses in this most recent book.

So what do you think:

Does literal anything even exist or is everything metaphor?