Joel, In trolling Barry with a lexicographical entry for apple you neglected to specify your source, with full bibliographical reference.
I think it’s good to be introduced to terms and concepts like telicity.
I once met a girl called Felicity.
I told her I did it
without temporal limit
but she said I was lacking telicity.
I think of it like the “it” that appears idiomatically, in things like, “Do you want the water melon or not? Yes. I want it.” The pronoun is required by the language. I have no idea why the particular detail of the rubbing was explicated and not another detail like chewing.
Your tone suggests that perhaps you could have written “torturous” there.
I’m flexible on this. Presenting arguments based on the concept of a fluid synonymy based on Luke’s reworking of Mark and Matthew’s synecdoche, or presenting them based on logical lexicosemantic taxonomy, where the hyponyms imply the hypernym either severally or together (either or both) seem to both be reasonable lines of explanation to pursue. If the reasoning about synonymy is problematic for you, you could think of the way that “eat steak” entails “have a main course”. When my mother asks, would people like steak or a pork chop for dinner, you know that there will be salad or vegetables with it, depending on the season. Adding another detail about eating the main course doesn’t add another course to the meal. Something like, “put the steaming vegetables out on a dish on the table”, gives the same (unstated) information about which course is being eaten.
You are saying that pluck is pluck, and rub is rub, and at that level of understanding the individual actions I agree with you, of course. I’m saying that pluck is forage and rub is forage, and forage was a legal action. They took the grain from their neighbour’s field, and put it straight in their mouths. They didn’t put any in their pockets for later. They plucked rather than harvested. They rubbed rather than threshed. Throwing in the sickle and winnowing would both imply a contravention of the law. Either or both of the words that Luke uses means that their action was lawful foraging.
No, I meant “tortured,” in that your reasoning and presentation has some easily identifiable flaws. “Torturous” would emphasize that it’s painful to read through. It’s not painful or difficult to read your prose. I only find it disappointing that, after reading, I get to the end and see that someone has wasted so many 2 dollar words for a 2 cent meal. I spent my youth dealing with the real technical vocabularies of math and physics, whose inherent complexities derive from the difficulty of the concepts and the fact that everybody working in the field is an autist with social issues. When I see a technical vocabulary with an artificial and affected complexity, I simply find it silly. Science-envy.
“Telicity” is appropriate in the right context of linguistics or composition (or the right dirty limerick), but you shouldn’t pull it out for times when you can say “resolution” instead.
Generally, if your technical vocabulary increases the precision of your prose, you’ve deployed it correctly. But “the concept of a fluid synonymy” or “logical lexicosemantic taxonomy” or “the hyponyms imply the hypernym either severally or together (either or both)” is mushy and imprecise. Mushy prose is muddled thought.
Let’s look in detail at these:
“the concept of a fluid synonymy” – Yes, words can be synonyms in some contexts but not others. I believe that this was covered in elementary school for most people.
“logical lexicosemantic taxonomy” – Taxonomies are rational by definition, so “logical” adds nothing. Neither does lexicosemantic add anything, as you are not actually using it to contrast against non-lexicosemantic taxonomies. A “fluid synonymy” is completely “lexicosemantic.”
Further, it’s misleading that you’ve invented an imaginary conflict between fluid synonymy and rigid taxonomies of synonyms. We are all adults here, and we all understand that words can be synonyms in some contexts but not others.
“the hyponyms imply the hypernym either severally or together (either or both)” – the word “imply” carries all the meaning here, with the other words adding nothing real.
Fix the mushy thinking, please! The 2 dollar words don’t hide it, and actually make the problem worse. Once you’re thinking clearly, then you’ll know exactly the right time to deploy them.
Ha ha. Quite a different reaction to new ideas than Barry’s surprise and near speechlessness. Bringing your past experiences and present assumptions about things to bear on something new is quite valid. Thank you for engaging with this so passionately.
Michael has substituted the initial “pl” of τίλλειν with an “f”.
You’d have to explain a bit what you mean by “resolution”. Is it like plot resolution, like when tension in the storyline is resolved - the non-specific statements of the contextualising phrase leave us wondering what will happen next, then the detailed phrase resolves our wondering? Alternatively, is it resolution like as in a high definition TV, where second phrase or verb is the detailed description of something specific? Both of those seems plausible interpretations of your “resolution” here, because they are both inherent in the phrase pairing model. If I myself was to prefer one, it would be the detailed definition one.
In school you learned that recognised synonyms were limited in use by their contexts. I am saying that anything can be a synonym if it means the same thing in a given context. The meaning behind the text or implied by the text in context is the test of synonymy, not just words themself. The ultimate basis of my thinking about synonymy is Halliday’s social semiotic theory.
“Logical” contrasts with other taxonomies here. The assumption that you are using to counter it is indeed being challenged by this statement. As you have correctly noticed, this is the first mention of a new idea. The relationship between the vocabulary structures of Greek, and the development of the Western ideas of logic is an interesting topic, but it doesn’t seems to have direct bearing on the textual adaptations here.
As I mentioned previously (to Barry, I think), I find it useful to differentiate between three ways of deriving meaning; inherent (lexicosemantic), morphosyntactic and text structural. Using the adjective lexicosemantic here is deliberate.
You need to re-think that. Your statement here reads as “a synonymy based on context is only based in inherent meaning”.
Feeling that you’ve been misled, when your ideas are challenged is one possible reaction to new ideas. I’ll leave you to get over your own reaction in this case, being as you are an adult.
Ditto from above for this part of the tantrum too. Of course there is meaning in the whole phrase - simply saying “imply” doesn’t say as much as the phrase.
Within these three retellings of the story, we are left to imply from the logical hyponyms that the action is lawful. There is no inherent need, as this example shows, to use the logical hypernym in the contextualising clause. In other passages, however, there is a much more explicit logical relationship between the contextualising and detailed, such as the two types in Acts 8:3 Σαῦλος δὲ ἐλυμαίνετο τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατὰ τοὺς οἴκους εἰσπορευόμενος, σύρων τε ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας παρεδίδου εἰς φυλακήν., where in the first pair going into the houses of the Christians is an example or explanation of how he mistreated the church, and in the second the place he ultimately dragged them to is prison.
Let me step aside from the reply to Joel, for a moment, to mention something not already mentioned. One of the important things in composition is the relationship between structural hyponyms and hypernyms. While they do seem to be an open ended set at first, their repetition suggests that they might be more formulaic. Perhaps the most obvious one in use in the gospels is the one containing ἀποκριθεὶς … εἶπεν. That raises the question of whether the structural hypernym limits the choice of structual hyponyms or the opposite, that the second phrase has a number of first phrase contextualisers to choose from. In the case of ἀποκριθεὶς … εἶπεν we could say that logically, “answer” is the hyponym of “speak”, because answering infers speaking, but that is counter-intuitively not the case. The contextualisingly structural nature of the two-phrase pattern says that answering (them/him/her) is the context in which he spoke. Looking at only logical taxonomy, without considering structural taxonomy might lead to wrong conclusions about the nature of structural taxonomy. The easiest resolution to that dilemma is to say that ἀποκρίνομαι is not a verb of speaking, and is not in the logical taxonomy of speaking verbs.
There is always a tension between expression and thought. Forcing thoughts into rigid structures of expression can lead to “logic” simplifying thought. Some of the things you’ve said here or implied like that taxonomy is by definition logical, hypernyms and hyponyms are a binary pair that doesn’t need to be stated, or that every primary school student knows synonymy is only applicable in some contexts may not have been misunderstood if your thoughts had more freedom to creatively range, outside of the strictures of logic.
I hope that you don’t speak to your mother this way, poor woman.
Did I say I was from Nantucket?
I left out the obligatory second line:
I once knew a girl called Felicity
who engaged me with constant lubricity.
I told her I did it
without temporal limit
but she said I was lacking telicity.
(vidi vici at non veni.)
Forgive the frivolity. I think this could have been a worthwhile discussion, but see no prospect of that now.
If you really think that there was good discussion here, Michael, I’ll suppress my annoyance with delivery and give a serious reply to ἑκηβόλος’ first statement. I don’t want to destroy an interesting thread because I get annoyed.
Context to make this make sense:
Early version of 6:1:
[1] καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν
Likely later versions:
[2] καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τοὺς στάχυας καὶ ἤσθιον ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν
[3] καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τοὺς στάχυας καὶ ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν ἤσθιον
It seems that in composition / compilation, Luke needed to add an extra phrase to the end of verse one to complete the sentence.
Here it is without: καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας
Not terribly abrupt. τοὺς στάχυας seems to work well enough as direct object for both. So no, I don’t agree that Luke was forced to add a concluding phrase. In fact, I imagine that it could have been added because he had some specific point of Jewish ceremonial law in mind with ψώχοντες. Some sort of technicality about milling or grinding on the Sabbath.
ἤσθιον isn’t really a separate thought in [1]. And ψήχειν/ψώχειν is not a synonym of τίλλειν in this context. However, it’s correct that ἤσθιον is used as a contextualiser.
This is a reasonable statement. If ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας is too much a single unit, it leaves ἔτιλλον without a direct object.
It’s not clear to me what is supposed to be contextualising now. Is was ἤσθιον a minute ago. But yes, τοὺς στάχυας was moved up for a reason.
Far more robustly than the glove touching with you in this present conversation. She sees emotions and setimentalities for the socially constructed means of control and encumbrences on certain individual members (especially women) that they are. At over 80 she still has plenty of spunk and fire to get into a good conversation. We engage as intellectual equals, not patronising each other with condescending niceties.
I was tossing up whether to extend discussion to this Bezae, or not, and decided against it. Whatever it is - earliest version or a rescripting of a Western version - it does not follow the rule of dual style (contextalising - detail) pairs. Seeing as you’ve brought it in to the discussion though, let me say that I think that if it was the proof copy sent to the editor’s desk by Luke himself, then the editor rearranged it to incorporate the structural duap pairs in his redaction. If it was a scripting from an early version, either the translator followed the word order of the version or he was post classical or non-native speaker of Greek, and knew Greek from an era or a background from when or where the dual speech style of the classical and Koine period was no longer used in the language. Modern Greek is not composed in this way. I should get around to looking at a range of texts over time, but I suspect that for some time at least, the level of education of the writer will be the determining factor. The Septuagint has mixed success or ignores the dual dpeevh styles feature of the language. Quotations of the Septuagint are also sometimes seem to be left as they are.
It may be both for the sake of style and to make a point. I mentioned above that I didn’t know why he chose ψώχειν rather than another detail verb.
This τίλλειν is a detail verb. It happens in the context of going through the fields.
Another way to look at this is that plucks a στάχυν eats a σπέρμα. It is an odd collocation to eat the head of grain, so Luke added the proviso that they rubbed them with their hands not ate the head completely unprocessed. That creates a problem for using τοὺς στάχυας as an object for “eat”, except if eat is understood as a synecdoche for peel and eat.
There is no reason that the need to round out the speech-style pair did not also serve as the occasion to make a point about Jewish law and also to serve as a “mind you they peeled them first” phrase too.
It is only abrupt when you are looking for the dual speech styles. If you aren’t looking for them, you won’t find them. I was hoping that bedwere’s losts or the Cambridge dictionary would assign words and meanings to either or both of the categories to aid on idiomatic composition. The composition yrxtbooks are also disappointing.
[quote=“ἑκηβόλος”]
As far as being a composer / redactor, Luke was able to round out (or make complete) thoughts, but in this case, he left his introductory or contextualising phrase too heavy for the sensibilities of wider readership.
[/quote]It’s not clear to me what is supposed to be contextualising now. Is was ἤσθιον a minute ago. But yes, τοὺς στάχυας was moved up for a reason.
As noted above, the question, “What was being contextualised?” presupposes part 2 priority in language, while the question, “What does it contextualise?” presupposes part 2 priority in composition. Because children begin their engagement with language in the tactile, detailed and immediate world of their daily needs and immediate surroundings, I suspect that part 2 vocabulary was the first learned in life by native speakers. As the complexity of structures increased, I suppose some if the part 2 language was given a contextualising role in part 1. Moreover, some specifically part 1 vocabulary, such as εὐδία, would probably have been introduced.
Either lexicosemantically (inherently) because it is only a part 1 / contextualising verb, or morphosyntactically because because it is an ingressive imperfect or a theta passive or structurally because for some reason it finds itself in a part 1 statement is enough reason for a verb to be contextualising. Being in or used in a part 1 statement often affects its range of meaning too - sometimes overlapping with the ill-defined logical concept of metaphorical.
In this case, we have seen that it can act as a part 2 verb in Marcian and Matthean redactions and possibly their respective oral traditions during the kerygmatic period, so it is not inhetently a part 1 or 2 verb. Tense and or placement determime what it is. Being in a part 1 position its structural meaning will imply, as they were eating.
Another way to look at this is that plucks a στάχυν eats a σπέρμα. It is an odd collocation to eat the head of grain, so Luke added the proviso that they rubbed them with their hands not ate the head completely unprocessed.
This is the heart of things isn’t it? You and I find it odd, perhaps. But we both speak languages with word order more concrete than Greek’s. Did Luke find it odd? Because Matthew did not.
Start by looking at Mark’s version: καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας. How does Matthew revise this? οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν, καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν. So, in fact, Matthew has done exactly what we are saying Luke couldn’t do, and had the disciples eat a head of grain.
And which of the two is Luke revising here? Did he adopt Matthew’s change by accident, following Mark, or is he following Matthew? Luke’s version does look quite similar to Matthew’s, excepting the phrase at the end, not present in Matthew or Mark. The two postulated revision processes would presumably be different.
Scenario #1 Mark → Luke
καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας
→
καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν
In this scenario, Luke’s process, perhaps, is to remove the inconsequential ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν, and front the actual information-bearing verb τίλλειν. This information-bearing verb, he expands to τίλλειν καὶ ἐσθίειν. τίλλειν τοὺς στάχυας becomes τίλλειν καὶ ἐσθίειν τοὺς στάχυας.
He then rounds out the sentence with the participle phrase, either for informational or stylistic reasons.
Scenario #2 Matthew → Luke
οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν, καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν
→
καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν
We have the three elements, τίλλειν, ἐσθίειν, and στάχυας already present in Matthew. But it’s harder for me to see a clear mental process for how this would be revised directly to Luke’s version. στάχυας is in its unobjectional position close to τίλλειν, and not causing the proposed discomfort that τίλλειν καὶ ἐσθίειν στάχυας might. The revision could be prompted by the desire to add the participle phrase at the end, which might point towards a desire to convey information.
This is the heart of things isn’t it? You and I find it odd, perhaps. But we both speak languages with word order more concrete than Greek’s. Did Luke find it odd? Because Matthew did not. [/quote]
I don’t understand the subtext of this latest post of yours.
Is your post written to continue discussion or to have a final say?
No subtext
Re 2 up: Yes. That is a good summary of many things.
I think heart of the matter for the dual styles is textual coherence. That is more true in poetry, where the use of syntactic conjunctives (conjunctions) and adverbial prepositions is less frequent, so other forms of coherence such as the dual speech styles become relatively more prominent.