judge

Sdaly when losing you revert to personal attacks. It just makes it obvious you can't refute whats been said.


If you had followed whats been said about construction grammar, you wouldn't be confused by whats been said.
Its easy to see where Mark 1:1 would fit according to it, and Galatians 1:19 in the traditional reading.
But your reading wont do in light of the many many examples of X the Y of Z already given.

You dont seem to be following any particular theory just picking and choosing bits and pieces that suit you

LegionOnomaMoi

It's not a formula. It's a construction. Now, I now you haven't any clue whatsoever what that means, and thus can't really address the argument apart from your snide, dismissive, and empty rhetoric, but as your extent of syntactic theory is obviously to limited (despite the fact that I supplied a whole volume), I'll switch to to what (hopefully) will be more familiar types of sources for you.

For example, Schwyzer (in his Griechesche Grammatik devotes an entire section to Der bloße Genitiv zum Ausdruck des Verwantschafts. Funk, Blass, & Debrunner's A Greek Grammar of the New Testament likewise includes an entire section on Genitive of origin and relationship. We even find "mathematical formula" descriptions in, for example:
Viti, C. (2008). Genitive word order in Ancient Greek: A functional analysis of word order freedom in the noun phrase. Glotta 84: pp. 203-238.

The author devotes an entire section to "kinship" a use relation "typically expressed by genitives in languages." She calls this the "genitive of kinship" and notes the various ways this construction is expressed. For example, "in prose a kinship relation can also be expressed by means of the structure X the one of Y.

But what about Paul, the use of brother, this "personal idiom" and letters? Well, thankfully, we have Eleanor Dickey's paper "Literal and Extended Use of Kinship Terms in Documentary Papyri" in Mnemosyne. She notes "the widespread use in letters of adelphos, for example, for people other than brothers does not imply that adelphos no longer meant 'brother' at all, but rather that there were certain situations in which it was appropriate to call someone other than a brother 'brother.'

"Personal idiom" indeed. Neither personal, nor an idiom. But more importantly Dickey's study is designed to show (among other things) when we can distinguish whether an author actually means "brother." For example, the use of the nominative plural adelphoi as an address frequently did not refer to actual brothers (apparently other people writing letters weren't aware that this was Paul's "personal idiom"). It turns out that we find the term used not to mean "a sibling" quite frequently, making it in general difficult to know when the term means sibling or not. There is, however, an exception: "There is no evidence that a person mentioned as being the brother or sister of someone other than the writer or addressee can be a spouse or anything else other than a sibling. (emphasis added). Interesting. Paul's "personal idiom" which he applies to in relation to himself, as an address, etc., is found all over the place to mean something other than sibling. Yet, according to Dickey, the exception to this is exactly what we find in Galatians: Paul mentions James, and identifies him neither as his own brother, nor addresses him as brother, but as the brother of someone else.

And there we have it. Even without construction grammar, we not only find the traditional grammar referring to genitive constructions for kinship, we have an entire study which is devoted to determining when kinship terms in Greek during the Roman period actually meant brother.

You said "personal idiom." Unless this is a specially defined term, the adjective "personal" means that this is a type of idiom, namely a personal one. As it is a type of idiom, it must be an idiom.

However, Paul's use is neither personal (as it is not unique to paul, but a cross-linguistic metaphor), nor an idiom, ergo it isn't a "personal idiom."


I know empty, dismissive, insulting rhetoric is so much easier than actually addressing arguments. I even provided you with an entire volume so you could at least understand the terms correctly (especially "construction"). But that requires thinking and work, and then you might discover that you are wrong, because you know already you haven't a clue what you are talking about when it comes to modern syntactic theory. But now I've provided you with scholarship you are hopefully more familiar with. Dickey's stuy not only shows how "Paul's idiomatic usage" is found throughout letters of his time, but that the way he uses it in Galatians means "brother."
I can continue to provide you with both references to construction grammar, modern theories of syntax, and analyses from classicists and other greek specialists on the use of the genitive kin construction and its applicability here.

However, I eagerly await the next 3rd person dismissal, and can only hope the insulting rhetoric is at least not as boring as in previous responses.

aa5874

Thank goodness Galatians has already been translated into English by numerous sources. Spin and LOM may take years before they agree on Galatians 1.19.

spin

"I say formula. You say construction...."

You can call your formula whatever you like. You are yet to show its relevance in the context of someone who so regularly indicates that his general use of αδελφος is not biological. That it is not LOM's formula in origin is not particularly important. Its relevance to Paul's writings has not been made and apparently has no means of showing its relevance, despite appealing to the fact that the formula is not his own.

The irony of this is from someone so practised in snide, dismissive, and empty rhetoric is worth a good laugh. He's typing too fast and not thinking enough about the clangers he's posting.

If it is the idiom that Paul uses and we note its unique features then of course it is his personal idiom. But LOM will continue in this folly, having already demonstrated his blunder.

Just as the Marcan writer addresses Jesus as the son of god. Paul addresses James as the brother of the lord (where the non-titular κυριος is god).

Eyes still wide shut. LOM can know what Paul meant while ignoring Paul's general usage.

Weaseling more, making less sense. Paul's personal idiom reflects the characteristic voice he uses, the means he employs to express himself.

Repeating himself... with the same reflex irony.

Of course Dickey doesn't mention Paul at all. Dickey also happily omits non-literal examples of kinship terms (p.134), which is interesting considering Paul so frequently uses αδελφος in a non-literal sense, and LOM once again is caught talking bullshit.

:hysterical:

judge

I wouldn't worry too much, but at least others on the forum can benefit from your comments.
One can understand why he is upset. If someone spends a very large portion of their time, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year (since at least 2003!!)on forum after forum pretending to be an expert on Galatians 1:19 and linguistics it is naturally upsetting.

LegionOnomaMoi

Let's start with the most important fundamental errors:

Dickey was referring specifically to the use of adelphos/adelphoi. You then compare this to "son of god." Only her study concludes that adelphos, not "god" refers to an actual kinship if the writer of a letter uses it to refer to the brother of someone other than the writer or the addressee.

Again:


1) She's dealing with letters.
2) She's dealing (in the relevant section on adelphos) with the use of "brother" or "brothers" and when it is often used metaphorically vs. when it isn't.
3) Paul's usage of "brothers" as an address that does not refer to siblings was quite common in Greek during the Roman period (despite your nonsensical "personal idiom" foolishness).
4) The one area we don't find this non-sibling usage is the construction Paul uses in Galations.

You can compare it with Marcion or Homer or Shakespeare and it would still be completely meaningless. Dickey's study, as far as when adelphos means sibling, concerns letters during the Roman period.

The random return to the second person followed abruptly by the third person aside, the fact that I say construction actually matters. Your utter ignorance of construction grammar (and modern approaches to syntax) make it impossible for you to understand the relevance. It's like explaining evolution to a creationist who doesn't know biology. Everything is easily refuted when you don't understand it- just reject it and convince yourself it's irrelevant.



These features are not unique to Paul. So it's not personal. It's also not an idiom, but a metaphor.


Because, being acquainted with actual scholarship on syntactic/grammatical models, I know the fallacy involved in applying "general usage.

Which is used not only quite frequently in greek letters, but cross-linguistically.


You can't possibly be this incapable of reading scholarship, so I'm assuming you simply skimmed to some line and came to the wrong conclusion. So, from Dickey:

p. 133-44 "The writers of papyrus documents apparently made a distinction beteen literal and extended usage and assigned each to its appropriate context. Therefore the widespread use in letters of adelphos, for example, for people other than brothers does not imply that adelphos no longer meant 'brother' at all, but rather that there were certain situations in which it was appropriate to call someone other than a brother 'brother'.

What exactly were those situations?...The aim of the present work is therefore to examine the epistolary use of kinship term in different contexts, to see whether disctinctions emerge that will enable us to understand this usage better."

Her whole point was an analysis of both non-literal and literal, and how the two are distinguished. As far as adelphos is concerned (from section 7):

"At the other end of the spectrum are adelphos and adelphe, which are frequently employed to people other than siblings.." She goes on to note that "The masculine adelphos, on the other hand, is much more frequent in extended use than any other kinship term, even if spousal usage is discounted. Extended use is especially common in vocatives and headings, where probable cases of it outnumber probable cases of literal usage in several centuries."

She then gives examples of metaphorical usage.


Even better, she specifically addresses christian usage. The conclusions about when a kinship term is literal or not change when it comes to 4th century christianity: "From the fourth century one finds an increasing quantity of Christian letters using extended kinship terms in a peculiarly Christian way" But Paul's letters do not date from this time. They are earlier, where her findings apply. And these demonstrate what I have also found using a construction grammar analysis: Paul's usage here refers to a literal sibling.

spin

In reality Dickey looks at most kinship relations.

Yup, it fits the formula. Ummm, X, the Y of Z, which is the crap LOM is most interested in, ie trying to shoehorn Paul into his prescriptions. Dickey is only there as fluff for that sad effort.

LOM seems to forget that he made the generalization about kinship terms, so he uses Dickey to justify his claim. OK, so now he wants only to talk about claims based on the use of αδελφος.

Where in Dickey's article does she talk about kin relations not with named people but with references such as του κυριου? Ummm, that's right, nowhere. The Marcan reference του θεου is closer to the Galatian than anything in Dickey's article.

Public letters written outside Egypt with a specifically religious context?

And the metaphorical analysed at most length is spousal.

You've proven yourself totally incapable of understanding a relatively simple notion. It'll be even harder to understand that your language prescriptions are not useful in real life.

(Ooops, I think LOM meant Galatians. You'd think he'd learn something.)

LOM hasn't shown any real use for citing Dickey. He hasn't dealt with genre at all. She deals mainly with spousal indications indicated by αδελφος or with far less frequency distant acquaintances or colleagues. But αδελφος as Paul uses the term??

Eeek, that wouldn't be more pedantry?!

LOM is baring his gums.

LOM's trying too hard to misunderstand. His continued misspelling of Galatians is part of his personal idiom, I spose.

Yet he hasn't shown he knows anything. Using references that don't support his case, using his formulae thinking he can apply them willy-nilly. This has been a one act show, a one trick pony show. Look, LOM has a formula and it must be appropriate because he says so. Sad, very sad.

He still doesn't get the fact that "idiom" is not being used for a particular language feature but the full active range of language used by the speaker. Doh!

No example of Paul's religious context. No examples of a brother not qualified by the name of the relative. Paul talks of "the brother of the lord". Where does Dickey deal with usages of such a type??

Relevance so far? None.

Spouses, distant acquaintances or colleagues. What about the religious context?

One needs to cite examples that are relevant.

"the kinship terms start to function like titles"

she continues. That isn't Paul's usage at all, so another irrelevance.

What LOM hasn't got in his head is that these are letters from Egypt, which obviously don't include Paul's writings. She's only dealing with those letters in her study, so her conclusions can only deal with the material she has and the christian stuff therein is much later. The comments relating to christians are not useful. She has nothing analogous to Paul's usage in the rest of her letters. She is irrelevant to Paul.

Dickey is basically a disaster for LOM, for she gives no support for his desired usage of the article. He's just wasted everyone's time.

LOM's formula, X the Y of Z, is once again threadbare, no support, and you, poor reader, are left to take his work that it is applicable, but without anything to convince you that it is.

judge

That is a very interesting quote.

We know that X the Y of Z was commonly used as an identifier (we've seen examples), and we know in this study of letters in greek from that time that anyone said to be a brother was in fact a literal brother, unless it was either the writers "brother" or the addressee's "brother".

LegionOnomaMoi

Yes, which is why I said:


Again, not a formula, but a construction, and a specific type of XYZ constructions (namely, kinship): from section 2. XYZ constructions and the genitive
"(1) Paul is the father of Sally
X is the Y of Z
X (Paul), Y (father), Z (Sally))"

Dancygier, B. (2009). Genitives and proper names in constructional blends. in Vyvyan, E., & Pourcel, S. (eds.) New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 161-181). Human Cognitive Processing Vol. 24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co..

Dancygier makes explicit that their are different types of this construction. I'm talking about one: kinship identification. However, as (again) you don't know what a construction is you continue to make an argument from ignorance.

This particular XYZ construction belongs to the family Dancygier identifies as GEN-XYZ constructions. But it is a particular subtype (she identifies many). Kreyer (Genitive and of-constructions in modern writtern English International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8:2) likewise categorizes this specific type of genitive construction from 7 others: "1. X is kin to Y (Kinship)"


Rather than continue to call it "formula" because your don't know what you are talking about, why not read some literature on constructions? For example: Phrasal Names: A constructionist analysis

Again, this is your misunderstanding of constructions. I already talked about constructions existing in a network and inheriting from one another (and I provided your with plenty of references to scholarship so that you could make an intelligent response which actually addressed what I am talking about.

The XYZ construction is like the double accusative construction: it is has multiple subtypes. The same is true with kinship constructions, identification constructions, etc. I am talking about an identification XYZ kinship construction. I used Dickey because you don't know what constructions are and refuse to learn even the basics. Dickey refers to the specific ways in which "brother" is used in hellenistic greek letters according to a massive corpus of papyri.

Page 138, e.g., "I consider you not only as a brother but as a father and a lord and a god." The word for "lord" is the kurion. Again (specifically concerning kurios) on page 140. Yet despite the fact that her corpus includes religious references to god and lord, and to titular uses of lord, she still concludes that the use of adelphos when it is not connected to the writer or the addressee refers to a literal sibling.

Really? Closer than κυρία μου ἀδελφή on p. 157? Because that has the feminine form of adelphos, a genitive, and the feminine form of kurios/lord. It's like the other construction you equated with Paul's use of adelphos in Galatiansand Dickey distinguishes it from the construction in Galatians.


Letters written from many places found at various sites in Egypt all in hellenistic greek (Paul's language) including religious contexts.



Because, contrary to your original objection here:
Dickey analyzes non-literal uses, which form the majority. However, as your initial objection (she omits non-literal examples) was completely and utterly incorrect, now you are objecting that she analyzes non-literal uses more than literal.



Oh I get it. However, it makes no sense to speak of a "personal idiom" when that use is not personal. If it this usage were particular to Paul, than it at least the personal part would make sense, but it would not change the fact that we are dealing with metaphor (in the linguistic, not literary, sense), not idiom.




You are just determined to make yourself look foolish. You were wrong about Dickey not addressing non-literal uses (and now you are objecting she devotes too much of her analysis to these). You are wrong here too. Her corpus includes the Oxyrhynchus Papyri which include Paul's letters.

Toto

How about the brother of God?