It is sort of taken as a given in grammars that the perfects in these two languages are different, but there is surprisingly little discussion of exactly what that means or how they are different.
Author: michaelaubrey
We’re looking toward 2019 and have exciting plans for the future of Koine-Greek.com.
- First up is the addition of a few more contributors to the site.
- In conjunction to that, we’re considering adding a Hebrew language corner, though the primary focus will continue to be Greek.
- We’re hopefully going to have more book reviews
- We want to expand the number of longform and multi-part essays, too.
In December, we will have more discussion of where we are headed and we will probably be looking for feedback as well.
Stay tuned for more details.
There are bits to be salvaged from Ruhl (1989), perhaps, but it might be easier to start elsewhere entirely.
I fully acknowledge there is certainly an appeal for monosemy as a theoretical construct. The ability to schematize all usages or senses within a single abstract sense does indeed simplified and elegant semantic theory. Such a theory is an attractive prospect for all linguists.
Generative grammar has moved on from its old theories about syntax. Can we please do the same with their semantic theories, too?
We’re getting over the peak and headed toward the end. The practical take away is coming.
Semantic theory: it’ll get harder before it gets hardest.
Meaning is hard. Unfortunately, I’m not going to make any easier here.
Compounds are complicated. They are formally complex, involving wide variation in their morphological/lexical formation. These formal complexities introduce their own series of semantic challenges.
Following up on my post with Greek language papers at SBL, here’s a similarly compiled list for ETS. Some of these are from different sessions and actually lover lap with each other, so you’ll need to plan accordingly if you’re interested.
Koine-Greek 