"Start Here!" - A New Grammar Resource For Students

I am pleased to announce today, the release of a new language resource for students.  The title of the project is:


Start Here! Grammatical Foundations for Students of New Testament Greek (A Student-Friendly Video Series). As the title suggests, this resource is video-oriented.  It is divided up into 6 main lessons and contains around 5+ hours of grammatical instruction (see image to the left - click an image to enlarge it).  Each lesson consists of a number of short, user-friendly / student-friendly videos and takes note of nearly 200 grammatical concepts that English learners / speakers who want to venture into learning Koine Greek should find helpful.  The videos are available for purchase ($80) HERE.  Once the purchase has been confirmed, buyers will be sent a download link.  I hope that these videos will assuage some of the fears that students, especially beginners, have when journeying into learning Koine Greek.

Review of Runge's "Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament" Pt 6

In Part 2, Chapter 4 of Runge’s Discourse Grammar, the discussion focuses on “forward-pointing” devices. Such devices are “conventions used to attract attention to something significant in the discourse” that is, devices used to garner attention to elements of the discourse that otherwise would not have been recognized. (59). According to Runge, there are two criteria used to qualify and classify these devices:  1) None of the forward-pointing devices is actually required to understand the content that is being pointed to, and 2) Not only is the forward­­-pointing device unnecessary to understand the content of the forthcoming material, but in fact, the following material would actually be conveyed more simply without it (59).  To put it differently:  forward-pointing devices (fpd) are unneeded and can even be distracting; however, this need not be an inherently negative distraction!

For Runge, forward-pointing is denoted by the symbol D, while what it is pointing to, that is, the “target”, is connoted by the symbol C.  These symbols are quite helpful as they make me think of bow hunting, an event wherein an arrow is shot towards a target.  With the text, the author is the bow shooter, the forward-pointing device is an arrow ready to be shot and the target is somewhere ahead, out in front of the author, waiting to be engaged.  In English, as Runge points out, we use forward-pointing devices quite often.  The following phrases are a small sample of such devices:  Get this!  Listen to this!  Guess what!  You know what?  Here’s the deal!  This is my final offer. (61)  Likely, you can imagine certain situations in which you would use such phrases, for example, when breaking news to a friend, when sharing an important story, when clarifying statements, ideas or circumstances, when making a deal, etc.

So, as Runge asks, “why use a forward-pointing reference?”  Can we not get on with it and simply make the point that we want to get around to?  According to Runge, fpds function to slow down the discourse, which then allows anticipation to be built up causing the reader to expect something important or surprising to be said, in short, “it has the pragmatic effect of attracting extra attention to the target of the fpd” (61).  It seems to me that the most difficult aspect of wrapping one’s mind around this is concept is attempting to distinguish between the use and importance of the devices.  To put it differently, it can be difficult to make sense of the fact that the fpd is not needed and can even be distracting, yet is still there, in the text.  Think about the phrases used above “Listen to this!” and “You know what?”  The word “this” in each of those phrases is unneeded.  Indeed, one could simply say “Listen!” and “You know…” and still get the meaning of the point across as well as point forward.  The terms “this” and “what” are unneeded, yet they serve the function of helping point forward; one might say that they doubly assist readers in not skirting over the forward pointedness of the phrases.  Both “Listen!” and “You know…” point forward by themselves.  However, the terms “this” and “what” qualify the fpds and again, function to doubly assist readers in not missing the anticipation and/or the target.

Based on the principle that choice implies meaning, then, even though these fpds are not needed, they are still significant.  Runge surveys three types of fpds:  Interrogatives, Demonstratives and Adverbs.  I will deal with each of these elements in-turn here.  When it comes to interrogatives, Runge considers the terms ti,(what?) pou/ (where?) and poi,ou (what kind?).  In my view, it makes complete sense that interrogatives would be forward pointing as indeed, they expect some kind of response or answer.  Thus, little time really needs to be spent on this topic.  A couple of comments, however, are in order.  Firstly, it seems to me that when reading the New Testament (NT) one can use the presence of questions as alerts to possible fpds and targets.  Understanding fpds as telegraphs may be helpful in this respective; readers now have something to anticipate.  Secondly, forward pointing interrogatives can also serve to strengthen an author’s point.  As Runge says, when an author asks questions, over and against simply getting straight to the point, it provides listeners with an opportunity to think about the matter and let it “sink in” (66).

Similar to interrogatives, demonstratives can also function as fpds, they can “accomplish the task of attracting extra attention to a target” (66).  When speaking of demonstratives, Runge focuses only on tou,tw|and its related form tau,thn.  Interestingly, Runge asserts that within the NT fpds are “most often associated with the writings of John and Paul” (66).  For example, in Jn 14.21, the fronted prepositional phrase tau,thn th.n evntolh.npoints forward to the target avgapw/n to.n qeo.n avgapa/| kai. to.n avdelfo.n auvtou/.  The author could have just quoted the commandment without using the fpd via a demonstrative, however, the fpd slows the reader down, causes him or her to think about it and both draws more attention to the target/commandment than had he not used it.

Lastly, Runge speaks of adverbs.  His comparison/contrast of adverbs and pronouns is very helpful.  If we understand pronouns as substitute words that are anaphoric, that is, pointing backwards (to a noun), then we can understand some adverbs as cataphoric, that is, words that are pointing forward to a target.  Runge actually calls these types of adverbs “pro-adverbs” by which he means substitute words that stand in for and point forward to the kinds and degrees of verbal actions taking place.  For example, in Matthew 6.9, we find the fronted adverb ou[twj (in this way), which appears in the phrase “This way, then, you pray…” and is pointing forward to the phrase Pa,ter h`mw/n o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j))) (Our Father who is in heaven…).  Here, the adverb, or to use Runge’s terminology, the pro-adverb, is pointing forward to a target phrase which provides the “kind” of prayer that the disciples should say.  Pro-adverbs can stand in the place of entire kinds and degrees of actions and can serve to highlight other minor or major themes in the discourse.  Runge offers preachers the following axiom:  “The same kind of attention-getting strategy can be utilized in your teaching or preaching” (69).

A very insightful and illuminating chapter, this portion of the book still raises questions for me.  For example, what about other types of questions, can/do they function as fpds?  There are hundreds of questions within the NT, perhaps surveying more of these would help further substantiate Runge’s arguments.  And what about the terms ouv or mh,, which often anticipate answers (even if there are expected rhetorical answers) are these fpds?  Or, what about Paul’s greetings or other such literary forms (e.g. miracle pericopae which point forward to a point or theme)?  These are just a few of the questions that arose for me and which I hope to continue thinking about and exploring as I read this excellent grammar.  Again, let me remind you, if you haven’t picked up your own copy over at Logos, you should go ahead and do so!

Review of Runge's "Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament" Pt 5

In Pt 4 of my review of Runge’s Discourse Grammar, we looked at the first four “connectives” of chapter 2.  Here, in Pt 5, we will look at the final 5 connectives.  Let’s begin with ou=n.  Right out of the gate, Runge suggests that the two-pronged answer of BDAG (Note: There is a typo on Pg. 43 in the second paragraph, where “cite” should be “cites”), which contends that, on the one hand, ou=n is backward-pointing, and on the other hand, it is a marker of continuation in a narrative, is problematic.  For Runge, this is only partially correct; he wants to parse this out a bit more and suggest that while ou=n does indeed link discourse elements together, it also signals a new development (+).  Often times, he suggests, ou=n occurs at “high-level boundaries in the discourse, where the next major topic is drawn from and builds upon what precedes” (43).  Yet, it can “be used to mark lower-level developments in the discourse as well” (44).  Following Levinsohn, the contrasting of ou=n and de,show how ou=n “constrains what follows to be interpreted as a further development of the topic that has been resumed” whereas de, “permits a change of topic (44).  Let me provide examples of my own to try to help illustrate this.

I went to the store to go shopping.  The store was a few miles away.  So after (+ ou=n) I was done shopping, I returned to my car to drive home.

I went to the store to go shopping.  The store was a few miles away.  Now (+ de,), after I was done shopping, I returned to my car to drive home.

You will notice that in both of the columns, the sentences are practically the same.  However, you will also notice a difference.  In the left column, the new development is both backward-pointing and carrying a sense of forward resumption.  In other words, while the ou=n represents a new development, it is not completely new; it is related to what came before and also marks a transition into a new but related course of action.  In the right column, you notice two “chunks” as opposed to one (in the left column).  This is marked by the de,, which signals a new development and functions as a change in topic.  In the left column, the movements are all related and in the third sentence, nothing else is expected by the reader.  However, in the right column, while the movements are related, the de, seems to suggest to the reader that a new idea has started and that further details of some event that happened after the shopping and upon the return to the car will be explicated.  In short, there is a slight change in topic.  One of the major takeaways here is that the traditional gloss of “therefore,” while helpful at times, does not always capture the nuanced idea of a new topic plus resumption.  Other glosses may be more successful in this regard!  As Runge notes, “Understanding what each connective uniquely signals is the key to overcoming the mismatches between English and Greek…Attempting to understand the constraints that a connective signals based upon one or two English glosses will only obscure the issue” (47).  This suggestion is taken in stride but it may have been helpful for Runge to either provide a domain of glosses or some tips for which glosses appear to work bests in various contexts (e.g. from book to book/author to author; for example, Runge, following Levinsohn, emphasizes that in John’s Gospel, ou=n is used a bit differently, that is, more or less the same way that de, is used elsewhere in the NT.).  Many exegetes, particularly those who have had but 1 year of Greek (which the front matter of the book says is all that’s required for using this grammar) may not have the propensity to deviate from “therefore” if they do not know which options are most likely to be used by the NT authors themselves!

The next connective in Runge’s list is di,a tou/to.  Here, the emphasis is on the use of di,a tou/to “in the absence of a full morphological conjunction” (48).  As such, di,a tou/to introduces a clause which has a “causal relation with the preceding discourse” elements, or put differently, it “reiterates a proposition from the preceding context” (48).  The key word here is “proposition”!  Whereas ou=n resembles di,a tou/to in that it marks new (+) development and (+) new continuity, di,a tou/to also signals the introduction of a proposition (which is related to the previous content but also functions resumptively, that is, it expresses relative continuity).  For me, the most recognizable takeaway here is the function of di,a tou/to as an indicator of an ensuing proposition!  In this way, then, di,a tou/to is often marked by the semantic constraint of causality.

If the first 6 connectives introduced by Runge are related by way of continuity, development and semantic constraint, then the following 3 are related by the fact that none of them mark development (51).  Let me deal with each of these in turn.

It may be helpful to begin our review of ga,r by taking note of Runge’s contrast of it with kai,, ou-n and di,a tou/to.  Whereas the latter three signal close continuity to what precedes, they also (with the exception of kai,) tend to mark new (+) development.  Ga,r, while closely connected to the preceding material, however, does not mark new (+) development, but instead, indicates “strengthening/support” (52).  Runge sums this up well:  “It [ga,r] does not advance the mainline of the discourse but rather introduces offline material that strengthens or supports what precedes…[it] can introduce a single clause that strengthens, or it may introduce an entire paragraph” (52).  Let me offer some examples of my own.

I built this house and (kai,; - no new development; equal state) I live in it. I built this house, therefore (ou=n; + new development; result) I live in it. I built this house so that (di,a tou/to; + new development; purpose) I may live in it.

I built this house, for (ga,r; explanatory material strengthening/supporting what precedes) I live in it.

Note the differences above in the simple sentences, where the three in the left column tend to express continuity and development (again, excepting kai,), whereas the right column’s sentence strengthens and intensifies the claim in the first half of the sentence.  Here, I am not merely stating that I built this house to live in, I am emphatically stating the fact that “I” built it, for “I” am the one living in it.  In other words, you know that it is owned by me and me only, because I am the one who built it and who lives in it.  Whether taken as implicit or explicit, the statement is suggesting that nobody else could have built or lived in this house.  This is the background information being relayed by using this connective, a different set of data and/or details than what is provided by the other connectives (which might leave room for the fact that while I built the house at one time and live in it now, I quite possibly could have moved out and someone else could have lived in it at an earlier point in time).  The nuance here is a bit tricky to parse out but Runge’s notion of strengthening here is, I must admit, quite fascinating and challenges me to read this tiny word in a much broader way.

The next two connectives that Runge reviews are me,n and avlla.  Because a much fuller description of these term’s functions are given later in chapter 4, only a basic overview of each is given here (54).  I start with me,n.  The core of what Runge wishes to focus on at this point is that me,n is a forward-pointing device: “It’s sole function is to create the expectation that some related element will follow” (54).  From that perspective, me,n can actually 1) Downgrade the importance of the sentence it appears in, that is, it can relegate the content of that sentence to a sort of secondary importance/significance, and/or 2) “explicitly correlate two elements that otherwise would only have an implicit relation” (55).  This is often seen in the me,n)))de, construction.  All of this appears to lead Runge to suggest that where many scholars and grammars suggest that me,n often be left untranslated, such a move is problematic.  Instead, this forward-pointer, which expresses new (+) continuity, does in fact, need to be translated.  More on this later but for now, even this brief distinction is quite helpful to me, someone who has been constantly reminded that me,n can often just be skirted over.

Finally, Runge’s short introduction to the semantic constraints of avlla,, while short, is actually helpful.  Whereas avlla, is typically defined as a contrastive conjunction, Runge offers a fuller treatment.  He argues that it is not avlla,itself, but rather the “context” in which avlla,often finds itself, that is decisive in whether or not the term functions contrastively or not (55).  In short, avlla, is not inherently contrastive, that is, contrast is “not a quality” of this connective; it is “context-dependent (55).  As such, avlla, while “nearly always used in the context of contrast” actually functions in a way that serves to sharpen the contrast being made (55).  Following Heckert, Runge argues that avlla, “provides a corrective to whatever it stands in contrast with” (56); “The constraint that it brings to bear is ‘correction’ of some aspect in the preceding context” (56).  For example, in the following sentence of mine, avlla, serves to sharpen the contrast between the first and second halves of the sentence:  I broke my bike but (avlla,) not on purpose.  The contrast is evident enough if we remove avlla, from the sentence:  I broke my bike…not on purpose. However, by adding avlla,, the first half of the sentence is sharpened or clarified or nuanced.  Without avlla,, you might think that I got angry and broke my bike or that I did it purposefully.  Yet, avlla,removes such thoughts and tells you that the breaking was a mere accident, a helpful clarification for one who might otherwise get in trouble.

There is no doubt in my mind that when it comes to Greek grammars, Runge’s work is up there with (maybe above?) the best of them!  Not enough can be said pertaining to the value of the nuances Runge provides on connectives alone!  I must say, I am eager to continue reading and reviewing, something I could hardly say about other grammars (although, I am a fan of David Alan Black’s work).  This approach helps bring the nuances of the texts to life in ways I've never seen before!  Thus, to echo what I’ve already reiterated four times, get yourself a copy of this work and let it challenge the ways that you’ve been thinking about Greek up to this point.  Head over to Logos and pick up your copy.  Let me just conclude with a chart that Runge provides on Greek connectives below, which may or may not be helpful to you:

Getting Greek: Grammatical Glossary App

Just yesterday, I launched my 4th app (GG: Vocab) and today, I'm releasing my 5th, the Getting Greek: Grammatical Glossary App. The Getting Greek: Grammatical Glossary is a resource that contains over 150 grammatical terms. More specifically, these are terms that those working with theological languages should familiarize themselves with. Thus, while this is a "Getting Greek" project, not only do the grammatical terms apply to Koine Greek but this app was also created with an eye towards biblical Hebrew/Aramaic, French & German as well. This will be a helpful resource for clergy, laypersons, teachers, students, professors, seminarians, grammarians and ancient language-lovers alike. Get it for .99 cents and tell your friends about it! You can see screenshots, watch a promo video and download it in the Android Market. While you're at it check out my other apps as well! (1. Koine Alphabet, 2. Koine Paradigms/Charts, 3. Koine Word Roots, 4. Koine Vocab).

Kalamazoo Cant Write"

A few years back, I lived in the very cool, artsy city of Kalamazoo, MI. I really like "K-zoo" or "Kazoo" because it has a lot for kids to do and is very family-friendly. Several years ago, K-zoo's public school system actually launched an initiative called "The Kalamazoo Promise". The "Promise" offers full-tuition scholarships to students who graduate from a K-zoo public school and wish to go to a college within the state. You can read more about it HERE. As a former native of K-zoo and as one who still has friends and family there, I was a bit embarrassed this weekend when I returned and noticed a few places of business who had major grammar-fails on their signs. Following are three photos I snapped in a couple of days, which illustrate my point:

In the photos of both Culver's and the school, we see the misuse of apostrophes. In the Culver's picture, the word "Todays" should have an apostrophe, while in the photo of the school sign, "Holiday's" should not have an apostrophe. (The fact that the Prairie Ridge Elementary School secretary did this should be quite embarrassing to not only to him or her as well as the principal, but also to the students and parents.) In the Vermeulen's sign, we see two grammatical errors in the slogan, which reads, "You'll like the look... You'll love the price". The first is the use of the ellipsis (the three dots), which in terms of grammar, when connected directly to another thought or phrase, indicates that something has been omitted. So, the viewer of the sign is left wondering, "Okay Vermeulen's, what is it that you are not telling me? What is it you are leaving out?" Then, at the end of the ellipsis, there is a space between the last dot and the beginning of the first letter of the next word. Grammatically speaking, there should be no space between the last dot and the next word. It is just a conjecture but perhaps the store's poor grammar had something to do with their shutting down. Then again, maybe not.

So, my dear friends of Kalamazoo, before purchasing a sign to post in front of your place of business, be sure you know how to use apostrophes, ellipses and commas. By the way, did you notice the missing apostrophe in the title of this post? What about the unnecessary closed quotation mark that has no opening one to match it? If you did, you might just be getting better!

March Forth - Grammarians Celebrate March 4th

Hahahahha...I'm turning into a freakin' nerd!