From: Mark Beatty (marksresearch@hawaii.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 10:44:40 EST
In this short essay I question the existance of "basic" Greek word order. I
propose a different approach to Greek word order. I illustrate with some
Modern Greek and English examples. I make some technical syntactic
observations, only the conclusions of which are necessary to understand this
essay. I conclude by illustrating how recognizing "syntactically
uneconomical" Greek word orders leads us to interpret Hebrews 12:2 in the
context of Hebrews 11.
Asking "what is the basic word order" of a Greek sentence cannot yield a
satisfying answer because the question is flawed. The idea of "basic word
order" usually presumes that there is one sentence order, (such as SVO or
VSO) and others are derived from this basic order. This approach usually
assumes at least a two step method of derivation, 1) creating the "basic,
unmarked" word order and 2) deriving the "marked" word order from the basic
word order.
This approach is flawed, despite its widespread use. This particular flaw
can be found in traditional Greek Grammars and commentaries as well as
mainline linguistics such as Chomsky's standard theory (60's and 70;'s),
much of Government and Binding (the 80's), and some of the Minimalist
Program (the early 90's). There are many problems with a base level that is
then adjusted to another form. One problem is that such a convoluted
process is not economical and thus fails to represent the marvelous
simplicity of human language. Another problem is that such an approach has
failed to answer such basic questions as, "what is the use of Greek word
order?"
A better approach is found in a revised minimalist program that advocates a
set of principles as primitives. These principles produce various sentences
types directly and do not go through a "basic word order". Consider the
following examples in English and Greek, since in this aspect both languages
work the same:
1. Ti thelete?
2. What do you want?
Both of these sentences start with the Object. The Greek sentence does not
need an overt subject nor does it need an overt auxiliary verb. The Greek
sentence is therefore an OV order and the English sentence is O AUX S V. I
argue that both of these are the "basic" word order. Both of these are
"unmarked". Both of these are the most natural way to form a question that
has a wh-word. Some might criticize this example asserting, "we are not
talking about questions, but 'simple' sentences". But that this issue would
be raised shows a great weakness in many syntactic theories. If a syntactic
theory does not work for the variety of sentences in a language (and/or
works for only one language) then that theory has only reached observational
adequacy and is incomplete. The theory I am proposing (Revised Minimalist
Program) works for all kinds of sentences in every language in the world.
Both the Greek and the English sentences work the same. (These next
two statements are technical and you do not need to understand them to
follow my argument, so please do not get hung up on the technicalities.)
Each has a +Q (question) feature in the complementizer position that is
satisfied when a wh-word is merged into the head of the complementizer
phrase. The wh-word then forms a c-command chain with the sister of the
head of the verb phraseto satisfy the theta and case features.
Now consider several other examples:
3. Thelw Rophima Sokolatas.
4. I want drinking chocolate.
5. Rophima Sokolatas thelw.
6. *Drinking chocolate I want.
Sentences (3) and (4) both have the object following the verb. For both the
English and the Greek this is the most economical way to form this sort of
sentence. Merging the object in this position satisfies the case and theta
features. No c-command chain needs to be formed.
Sentences (5) and (6), however, are not economical. The English sentence is
ill-formed (ungrammatical) as indicated by the *. The Greek sentence, on
the other hand, is well-formed, but it is syntactically uneconomical. Here
is something unique and special about Greek that is different than
English-word order can be used for other than syntactic purposes. But what
is the purpose of this uneconomical syntax? The word "emphasis" has been
used to describe this uneconomical syntax. This label is unhelpful,
however, because "emphasis" is hopelessly overused and irretrievably
ambiguous. The better method would be to conduct an ethnolinguistic survey
and ask the native speaker "why did you say 'drinking chocolate' before the
verb and not after?" To this she might answer any of the following:
7. Because I'm tired of drinking coffee.
8. Because I haven't had it in a long time.
9. Because the waiter was brought me a lemonade.
10. Because I wanted that particular brand of hot chocolate.
11. Because I wanted to drink the same beverage as the cute Greek grammarian
at the end of the bar.
12. Because I really, really want some now.
13. etc.
All of these could be called "emphasis" but how does that help? Many other
labels are more precise. (7), (9), and (10) could be called contrast. (11)
could be called parallelism or cohesion. (8) could be called background
information. (12) could be called highlighting or foregrounding.
The writers of the New Testament, unfortunately, are not available
to answer such ethnolinguistic questions. Thus we must get an answer from
three sources: context, context, and, context. Consider Hebrews 12:2, for
example. The genitive determiner phrase (DP) "of the faith" THS PISTEWS
occurs before the nouns it modifies. This, according to my syntactic
theory, is syntactically uneconomical. Why did the author place the
genitive DP in that location? The answer is not found in syntax. All
syntax does is indicate it is uneconomical and thus motivated by forces
outside of syntax. The answer for this word order is found in discourse
considerations. Perhaps this phrase is syntactically uneconomical to
indicate cohesion between "the faith" of which Jesus is the ARXHGON KAI
TELEIWTHN, and the "faith" of Hebrews chapter 11. Commentaries have missed
such details because their syntactic theory is not adequate to find
syntactically uneconomical words. Because traditional exegetes cannot find
syntactically uneconomical words and phrases, they fail to ask the discourse
motivation for the word order. By failing to ask the discourse motivation
they limit their insight into the author's intent of such passages.
Such insights from syntax and discourse are very valuable, for
example, in Hebrews 12:2. There are many interpretations of "faith" here as
saving faith as when one first hears the gospels and trust in the Lord Jesus
for the forgiveness of one's sins. This should not be the interpretation if
"faith" in Heb 12:2 is the faith of Hebrews 1:6, the faith that diligently
seeks God. If Heb 12:2 is the faith that diligently seeks God, this has a
great impact on the interpretation of ARXHGOV KAI TELEIWTHN. My theory is
that these two should be translated as the "foremost example and perfect
example of faith" rather than "the author and perfecter of our faith". I
think there is also strong theological support for this interpretation also
(I mention this just to argue from larger context not to introduce theology
into B-Greek). Ephesians 1:3-11 shows that God the Father is the one who
"authored" or planned out our salvation. Ephesians 1:14 indicates ("'until'
the redemption") that the Holy Spirit is the one who is finishing our
salvation. Jesus would be the one who purchased it. The purchaser is
different from "author" and "perfecter".
In conclusion, the research program of seeking the "basic" word
order has been unfruitful. A revised minimalist approach can discover
syntactically uneconomical words and phrases. Through ethnographic
interviews or contextual study one can find the discourse reasons for
uneconomical syntax. Finding these reasons for uneconomical syntax can be a
great help in exegesis.
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:49 EDT