Andrew Keenan continues his investigations…For the rest of the series, see: Tarnishing the Ideal. Wittgenstein’s work has a […]
Somehow in the business of the 2019, I missed this intriguing release from Oxford University Press: Matthews, P. […]
“Verbal Aspect Theory” and its companion “Aktionsart Theory” are both phrases that need to be reconsidered. The way it gets used by NT grammarians is anachronistic and leads to misreadings of the grammatical literature.
Continuing on with my summary of the papers presented at SEBTS’s Linguistics and New Testament Greek Conference, April […]
Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics does not ascribe ontological status to his grammatical categories. Maybe that’s a problem.
This is the entirety of my series of discussion of Charles Ruhl’s (1989) monograph On monosemy.
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?
How can there be any substantive discussion about language data or linguistic method if we cannot even agree on the history of research? New Testament Greek grammar is simply broken. And nobody seems interested in trying to fix it. So where do we go from here?