Paul Danove Review

I’m uploading the pdf of my complete review of Paul Danove’s book in its entirety. Total, it is a seven page review — so I’m going into the territory of the longer RBL review lengths. I’ve never been one for brevity, though it is something I strive for.

Review of Danove’s Verbs of Transference.pdf

5 thoughts on “Paul Danove Review

  1. Mike, thank you for the careful and detailed review of my book. You did a great job in identifying the major proposals and most significant implications. I appreciate the time you spent on this.
    Paul

    1. It was my pleasure. Though my background is more generative, from my very first syntax class, I recognized the strength of argument structure as a basis both for differentiating lexical semantics & exegesis. Also, I’ve been frustrated with the nonsense that Porter and others have written about both your own work as well as that of Simon Wong, where they confuses morphological case with semantic roles in reviews & literature surveys and make silly claims about the death of Case Grammar, when Filmore’s conception of semantic roles has been adopted by just about every major linguistic framework used today.

      1. Mike, I too find the non-reception of Case Grammar puzzling. While not addressing all questions and problems, it certainly brings clarity and precision to many areas of lexical semantics and exegesis, as you pointed out. However, I must say this for Stan Porter: he was very supportive as early editor of my book, Linguistics and Exegesis, and of two articles in the Studies in New Testament Greek Series. He and Andrew Pitts also have accepted a lengthy article on didwmi and its compound in the LXX and NT for a forthcoming Brill project. We’ll have to wait to see whether this book and the forthcoming article find any traction among our colleagues.
        Paul

        1. I will look forward to your forthcoming article. I’ve followed your work quite closely ever since my undergraduate studies. The semantics & argument structure of didwmi has always been intriguing to me – I think it was the usage in Ephesians 1:22 that first grabbed my attention.

          And I’m definitely encouraged to hear of Dr. Porter’s support of your past work, though it makes his criticism seem somewhat stranger.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s