From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 15:03:22 EDT
on 04/18/00 10:21 PM, yochanan bitan wrote:
clay egrapsen peri "continuity/discontinuity":
>First of all, KAI + finite verb is
> normally a mark of CONTINUATION with a main-line event in a story, often with
> the same participant or perspective as the preceding event. That is the main
> reason for KAI beginning a sentence and especially when beginning a new
> paragraph unit. However, in some Jewish Greek, this structure multiplied
> itself against-the-grain of Greek sensitivities. Mark has far too many
> sentence-initial KAI's for any semblance of Greek sensitivities, his style has
> a distinctly 'foreign' sound. AND Mark 6.1 is an example of such excess. (By
> the way, excessive KAI-style is not "Aramaic" narrative style unless it is
> also accompanied by occasional examples of "narrative tote" 'then'. Cf. Mt's
> 55 examples. Pure excessive KAI is Hebraic, as in Lucan and Marcan narrative.
> [Both Hebrew and Aramaic use 'then' in prophetic discourse, only in narrative
> does 'then' become diagnostic of language.])
>Secondly, you appear to be taking
> the phrase continuity/discontinuity in an inverse ratio to its essence. [You
> imply that a lack of fronting would naturally lean towards discontinuity: "we
> are not saying that the lack of this fronted constituent "marks" a complete
> discontinuity".] Actually, a fronted contextualization normally signals that
> something has changed, some new perspective must be assumed. The whole point
> of needing the fronting is that a road sign is necessary: "curve ahead". The
> simplest, plainest kind of continuity, on the other hand, will normally not
> have any fronting, since the previous situation/arrangment of actors and scene
> continues as it was. If you are going to use continuity and discontinuity
> together as a joined term, then you would be better off labelling it
> Discontinuity/continuity, since the discontinuity is dominant. Stephen and I
> probably disagree in emphasis on this point. I see continuity as the unmarked
> background of a text, since the next event in a story automatically implies
> some kind of continuity with the preceding by virtue of its existence in the
> text. It is the deviancies that need marking. To use my metaphor from above:
> Stephen would say that a curve in the road is 'continuous' with the road
> leading in. I would say that 'curve' isn't marking continuity, that is
> assumed, but marking a kind of change in the road.
>
Randall,
I think that you and Steve Levinshon may be on somewhat of a different track
here as you have suggested. My ideas are somewhat divorced from both yours
and Levinshon's thus we have the confusion over terminology and some
substantial disagreements. I will attempt a clarification.
First of all there may be a confusion in my mind regarding narrative
continuity and textual cohesion. I take Mark's use of KAI + finite verb as
an UNMARKED connector. It does not provide any fronted elements that would
aid in making the text cohesive. My understanding of the fronted constituent
slot is that it can be used for several different (pragmatic?) functions.
When we see an anaphoric participle placed in this slot it may provide
textual cohesion by tying the clause with the preceding narrative block.
When we see a point of departure filling this fronted constituent slot it
may serve to encoded both continuity and discontinuity. POLLOI, by
indicating a change in participant in Mk 6:2 leaves the reader to assume
that the temporal progression is linear (temporal continuity) and says
nothing about topical continuity.
It isn't wise for me to try and speak for Steve Levinshon* since I have only
had his book for two weeks and I am still on a steep learning curve. On Page
22* Levinshon indicates that in NT Greek a fronted constituent is the
primary means of relating a sentence to its context. This statement has
implications for both cohesion and continuity. I would say that fronted
constituents are used to enhance the cohesion of a text while they may at
the same time be marking changes in temporal sequence, participants and
topic. So if we unscramble the cohesion from continuity issue some of our
problem goes away.
When it comes to Mark's use of conjunctions, Levinshon* (page 39), in
commenting on Mark's non use of DE to indicate development, makes the
statement "Mark seldom presents one incident as developing from the previous
one." I may be reading something into this since KAI + finite verb is not
what Levinshon is discussing here. However, it seems to me that the our case
in MK 6:1 is an example of discontinuity since only the temporal sequence is
continuous. I guess it is my current inclination to stick with the notion of
KAI + finite verb as UNMARKED in regards to continuity.
Your said:
>I see continuity as the unmarked
> background of a text, since the next event in a story automatically implies
> some kind of continuity with the preceding by virtue of its existence in the
> text. It is the deviancies that need marking.
This makes sense. However, when I read the Gospels it is easy to see the
scenes as the result of an editorial cut and paste procedure. What I am
saying is that KAI + finite verb is weak paste whereas a fronted constituent
is strong past even when it identifies a change in topic, temporal sequence
or participant. Particularly strong paste is a fronted anaphoric participle.
So that textual cohesion is lower with a KAI + finite verb than it would be
with a fronted constituent. Again, textual cohesion being somewhat of a
distinct issue from narrative continuity.
Thanks a lot Randall, you are helping me absorb this material which is
difficult digest quickly.
Clay
*Levinsohn, Stephen Discourse Features of New Testament Greek,
SIL 1992 222 pp. (paper)
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:06 EDT