Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
All those claims about "we have to find it in Josephus" actually meant "Josephus is the biggest searchable body of Greek etc."...
So, if now you're making a claim about Greek, and not Josephus, does that mean that this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
And so you are supposed to be justifying the marked word order in Josephus.
|
no longer holds true? |
It holds true in that it is trying to get you to stop waffling about vagaries that you can throw and concentrate on the manifested form under discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
Shaye Cohen (people frequently misspell the name) clearly indicates that he has a notion of syntactic structure that can distinguish a figure already introduced.
|
Where? |
Umm, look at the sentence I went on to cite. :banghead:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
That he can be disappointed ("Anipater the father of Herod is described as if a new character...") merely shows that the marked syntax is not obligatory.
|
No, markedness shows that unmarked syntax is not obligatory. That's the whole fucking theory. |
So far it seems that your recurring complaint is you fucking up because you want to force your intentions onto my statements. Your recurring blunder is one of prescription.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
What Cohen should have remembered is a working principle explained by Runge in his doctoral dissertation ("A Discourse-Functional Description of Participant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative", U. Stellenbosch, 2007), "Usage of a marked form explicitly indicates the presence of a particular feature. Use of the unmarked form does not specify whether the feature is present or not. It may or may not be present; the form is unmarked".
|
That's what YOU should have remembered (and had you followed his citations, you would have discovered construction grammar). |
The basic notion of markedness is flourishing now as it did when introduced. It's just some trendy flavors of linguistics may not like the term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
The entire point behind his dissertation is simply that if one can identify "marked" forms of participant reference vs. "unmarked", then one can determine that the "marked" forms convey more semantic meaning. That's it.
|
And what is conveyed in the descriptor first word order in 10.200??????
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Now, first of all, your google search hit is on biblical hebrew, not greek.
|
That somehow invalidates the general comment about markedness? Naturally not. It's just you trying to split another hair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
So we're still relying on your analysis of "marked" word order here, which contradicts numerous analyses of actual greek. And as long as you want to use functional analyses, why ignore "Genitive word order in Ancient Greek: A functional analysis of word order freedom in the noun phrase"? According to Viti's analysis, after Homer, preposed genitive kinship relations are more frequent. In other words, if we look at how genitive kinship in greek is typically expressed, AJ 20.200 is unmarked. So sad for you.
|
It seems that you didn't notice the fact that Viti was dealing with a Greek of 500-600 years earlier. We are dealing with a different Greek.
[Jargon buster:
preposed = placed before
in English we have two grammatical types of genitive, one which is
preposed:
1. the doctor's hand
and one
postposed:
the hand [COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]of the doctor[/COLOR]
]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
As unhelpful as it was the first time. This is smoke. You need evidence for your claim that the syntax in 20.200 is somehow ordinary
|
And I provided it. For Greek. With Bakker's study on the noun phrase, with Viti's study cited above, etc. |
Viti has been scratched as not relevant. The one example you gave from Bakker is from the time of Herodotus!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
What you have failed to do is show that it is "somehow" not ordinary.
|
You did when you couldn't find a decent analogue to the word order in 20.200.
:wave:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
You could and I'd say thanks for not doing so... except for the fact that what you are doing is wasting your time not making a point. While I said "[i]t is common to lead with the old information". It is not obligatory
|
.
Only it isn't "common" in Josephus. What is "common" when he uses patronymics is "son first." Period. |
You have had a long time to produce a repertoire of examples where the descriptor comes before the subject of the phrase, examples where there is no prior reader knowledge of the descriptor (and there is no pragmatic need of the writer to enforce coherence through bracketing) and you haven't produced a sausage. It's all been screaming and shouting and complaining. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
You are the one who is trying to prescribe linguistics rather than describe it.
|
This is getting really funny. You are accusing me of a prescriptive approach when I'm the one saying that the word order is not irregular? |
Yeah, you do realize there's a difference between descriptive and prescriptive linguistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
So this is what we'll get as the basis of your analysis of clausal constituents? |
No, it refers to your "weaselliness that is commendable of a Bill Clinton asked if he had had sex with Monica Lewinsky". I could have put it another way, such as you trying to sell a VW as a jock's car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
While "almost every order of NP constituents is possible" there are clearly preferred orders, otherwise Cohen's expectations couldn't be disappointed, when preferred orders are not evinced.
|
That would only be true if Shaye Cohen .. used "word order" as the basis for his note that Josephus frequently "introduces" people he has introduced before. Only he doesn't. He relies on the fact that they are identified as if we had no idea who they are. This is done lexically. For example: "The uneven method of introducing and re-introducing characters and places is particularly conspicuous in V. Cestius Gallus, the governer of Syria, is mentioned first in V 23, but his title does not appear until V 30." I don't see anything about word order. Do you? |
I'm sorry. I was trusting you and working under the idea that you had some relevance to word order for your introduction of Cohen. It seems that this is not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
I'm working on the notion that the head word is the one that everything else depends upon and qualifies.
|
Then your notion is faulty. Because analyses of greek word order demonstrate that preposed reference modifiers are more typical. This includes genitive kinship relations. Thus AJ 20.200 is "unmarked" if one wishes to use that particular thoery. |
Does that help to explain why you haven't found all those examples in Josephus's writings--that don't fit the features: prior reader knowledge and coherence necessities--to support the claim "that preposed reference modifiers are more typical"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
From "the brother of Jesus called christ James by name" we remove all the identifying material and end up with James. From 'the son of Nabateius by the name, called from ill-fortune, Keagiras, which signifies "lame"' we get Keagiras, a name which could simply replace all the rest and maintain a coherent sentence.
|
Only it doesn't. Make up your mind. Do you want to apply structuralist/transformationalist "analysis" (i.e., your colorful word bracketing), or not? Because this talk of "simply replace" and so forth is formalist, not functionalist. The simple fact is that in both cases, all the identifying information comes first. The only thing that follows the name is what it means. |
Pedantic as ever. Cutting through the dross, the reason for the word order with Keagiras is straightforward.
You have no reason for it in 20.200.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
Isn't that the issue? We know why the others are.
|
No, we don't. We have your bogus claim about famous people and previously mentioned people, the fact that you conflate patronymics with other forms/methods of identifying, and your crap analysis of the "structure" of AJ 20.200 and the other examples, in which you bracket things according to a linguistic theory you apparently invented. |
So old information is irrelevant to linguistics. This
is certainly
according to a linguistic theory you apparently invented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
He apparently thought the fact that he was called--at least in its Greek equivalent--"Keagiras" was worthy of explanation.
|
So, as long as you can come up with an ad hoc explanation for your "marked" order we're good? |
Are you denying that such "bracketing" doesn't happen in Greek?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Ok. Concerning AJ 20.200: Josephus apparently thought that the fact that James was the brother of Jesus called christ was worth mentioning first.
|
Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
Apparently because he felt it necessary to locate the name closer to the end of the phrase.
|
More ad hoc. |
It's only ad hoc because you neglect the analysis already given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
functional linguists are using it to explain why we find the structures we do (i.e., find a reason Josephus uses the word order he does in 20.200), you were doing just the opposite: it's "marked" and therefore questionable.
|
Markedness implies a linguistic feature not implied by the unmarked form. I ask you yet again, what is the feature implied by the word order in AJ 20.200?
You can keep pretending that the notion of old information (prior mention or fame) is somehow ad hoc and not the feature behind most examples of a descriptor being preposed as already discussed, but this is certainly
according to a linguistic theory you apparently invented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
This is quite enjoyable to watch this perverseness. You were just crapping on senselessly, assuming I thought it wasn't marked while hinting it was, and now you learn that I say it is marked, so you change your tune.
|
Actually, I'm still waiting for anything resembling a coherent approach to Josephus, Greek, or language. Your colorful "bracketing" is plainly transformationalist, but you refer to a functionalist dissertation (of biblical hebrew) to defend your markedness use (only he doesn't follow your use). |
The traditional LegionOnomaMoi bait and switch. You have indicated that you thought that the word order in the Keagiras example was marked. Had you read what you were responding to a bit more closely at the time, you would have known that I agreed with you. So your complaint about my agreement, is only light comic relief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
And I've explained the necessity.
|
"NECESSITY"? Where? |
Look at that daft pedantic jumping on "necessity"! I wonder what you'd make of my main supermarket necessity being chocolate milk...
:hysterical:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
You made up a rule, and then made up ad hoc explanations for exceptions.
|
There is nothing ad hoc about the notion of old information. You are merely in a state of denial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
You know basically what the term means and you've let it slip.
|
I don't "basically" know. |
(This begs me to decontextualize it.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
if you really wanted to use markedness here, you'd be doing what you did (well, sort of; an actual linguistic analysis wouldn't be as ad hoc), which is to use the "marked" structure to explain what the author intends to convey by using it. Not claiming its "marked" and thus should be considered suspect. That flies in the face of the entire functionalist program.
|
I can't help your trying to put the cart before the horse mentality. It doesn't represent reality. I have pointed to an unmarked form and described instances of a marked form explaining that the writer conveys the notion of old information (recently mentioned or famous). You've provided examples that corroborate this (as well as an instance that involves another reason behind the form). Once again, what is conveyed with the word order in 20.200?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
If you disregard the word "normally". What this example appears to be is a normal structure of an introduction without descriptor ("a certain boy named Jesus") with "Tebuthi" thrown in as an afterthought.
|
More ad hoc. |
Not "more", just "ad hoc".
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
It's normal, but it's not because we have a preposed genitive. Which is actually normal, but not according to your made up rule, so you've made up a reason to go along with it.
|
You've shown no reason to think any of this based on the language of the time. I'm at least trying to interact with the language Josephus uses. You on the other hand are just crapping on with inappropriate secondary sources that you drop like bulldust. Here it is again:
τις Θεβουθει παις Ιησους ονομα
What's normal about a preposed genitive (Θεβουθει) between a preposed τις and the τις's head noun in the language of the day of Josephus? Perhaps you can supply some statistics on the issue or provide several similar exemplars that indicate that it is in fact normal in the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
You can wrongly call them exceptions. You've merely supplied examples of marked syntax that hadn't been considered, those that feature the use of inclusion.
|
So, having invented what structures are "marked", and why, you then explain the reason for markedness behind every other structure that is "marked". Except AJ 20.200. There ad hoc explanations fail you. |
You are left still trying to hide the fact that AJ 20.200 doesn't evince normal word order. You've talked about almost anything other than the syntax in question. Almost everything you're said here has been smoke. Viti was looking at something different from the issue in 20.200: noun+genitive vs genitive+noun. We weren't discussing genitives per se at all. The descriptor contains a genitive, but it is itself in the form noun+genitive ("the brother of Jesus...") which precedes the name (James).
In Josephus we see over and over again a word order with name first then the relation descriptor, usually with the genitive preposed, eg
[T2]12.432
Σιμων και Ιωναθης αδελφοι του Ιουδα
Simon and Jonathan brothers of Judah
13.222
Αντιοχου του Δημητριου αδελφου
Antiochus Demetrius's brother
13.368
Αντιοχος ο Σελευκου αδελφος
Antiochus Seleucus's brother
14.33
Φαλλιων ο Αντιπατρου αδελφος
Phallion Antipater's brother
17.220
18.31 []
Σαλωμη η [του βασιλεως] Ηρωδου αδελφη
Salome the sister of [king] Herod
18.273
Αριστοβουλος ο Αγριππου του βασιλεως αδελφος
Aristobolus the brother of king Agrippa
18.342
Ανιλαιος ο του Ασιναιου αδελφος
Anileus, the brother of Asineus
20.15
Ηρωδης, ο αδελφος μεν Αγριππα του τετελευτηκοτος
Herod the brother of Agrippa the deceased
20.137
Φηλικα Παλλαντος αδελφον
Felix brother of Pallas[/T2]
Exceptions are for the expected reasons, fame or recent mention, eg 17.257 του Ηρωδου αδελφου Φασαηλης ("Herod's brother Phasael"), though that's not like 20.200. So once again what feature is indicated by the unusual word order of 20.200??
I believe that you can't make a case for the 20.200 word order. Hence all the smoke to cover your deficiency.
06-23-2012, 09:32 PM
