A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics by R. L. Trask
I really don't use the English dictionaries in Logos - but this is a dictionary I would use.
[Y]
[Y][:)]
A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics by R. L. Trask I really don't use the English dictionaries in Logos - but this is a dictionary I would use.
Looks good.
If you don't use English dictionaries, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Hmm, I'm not sure it's exactly something that "novices" will "wonder how [they] ever managed without" as this blurb on the back cover claims.
Here's the first sample page. It's all pretty much gobbledygook to me. It kind of put me off to the whole dictionary, though there are some definitions on later pages that are easier to understand.
Those abbreviations (NP and WH) are not defined anywhere, and the hyphenated terms they are part of are not boldfaced so I have to assume they do not appear as entries in the dictionary. I wouldn't expect a "novice" linguist to know them.
Furthermore, why would we ever need to look up any of the stuff on this page for using Logos? A search through my entire library (6149 resources) did not find one instance of any of the terms on this page. Even some of the more readable definitions on the next page are for terms that do not occur anywhere in my Logos library:
It seems to me (from the title and this sample page) to be a technical dictionary for those involved in the field of linguistics, including perhaps some who are new in that field such as students in university-level linguistics classes. But I don't think it would be a useful general dictionary of grammatical terms for most Logos users. Perhaps something like The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar would be more widely useful.
Every shoolboy knows that NP refers to Niels Peter Lemche and WH refers to Westcott and Hort. [:D] [6]
Every shoolboy knows that NP refers to Niels Peter Lemche and WH refers to Westcott and Hort.
Every computer scientist knows that NP refers to Non-Polynomial (as in NP-complete) and every American knows that WH refers to White House.
Unless their specialty is parsing - especially for natural language processors. [:)] The dictionary is no more puzzling than the coding for morphology or discourse analysis or symbolic logic. The dictionary provides a bridge between those who think in terms of classical grammatical terms and those who think in linguistic grammatical terms. It would help people who dislike tree diagrams see that the clause analysis diagrams are standard tree diagrams.
It is an excellent resource for syntactic and morphological terminology by a renowned linguist. I am not sure everyone understands all the terminology used by AF (and Talstra in WIVU). Well at least I don't. Furthermore, sometimes we come across linguistic terms in grammars (Gesenius, Jouon-Muraoka, Waltke O'connor etc.) that we want to investigate further. I have a nice dictionary of linguistic terms in Hebrew but it is not as elaborate.
PS It is interesting that this excellent book comes under close scrutiny while CDCH which should probably be named WOS (Waste of Space) gets everyone's votes. Has anybody even bothered to leaf through it?
I suspect that anyone with a term of introduction to linguistics could easily use the book. There would be a number of unfamiliar terms but they are defined in terms that are familiar. Depending on the text that was used, you might need to trace terms down a second layer. For example, in Introduction to Linguistics, I learned the node terminology but not the bar terminology.
Perhaps something like The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar would be more widely useful.
The problem here is that English grammar is for a Germanic language with French influences (some would say pidginized). Greek and Latin are not Germanic; Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Ugaric, Coptic ... are not even Indo-European. I certainly would enjoy having the Oxford Dictionary available but it would not serve the same purpose - the understanding of the various clausal diagrams offered in Logos.
I am not sure everyone understands all the terminology used by AF (and Talstra in WIVU).
Thank you - that is exactly my point in suggesting the resource.
Those abbreviations (NP and WH) are not defined anywhere, and the hyphenated terms they are part of are not boldfaced so I have to assume they do not appear as entries in the dictionary. I wouldn't expect a "novice" linguist to know them. I suspect that anyone with a term of introduction to linguistics could easily use the book. There would be a number of unfamiliar terms but they are defined in terms that are familiar. Depending on the text that was used, you might need to trace terms down a second layer. For example, in Introduction to Linguistics, I learned the node terminology but not the bar terminology.
Right click in Cascadia on NP, look up glossary entry:
Nominal Phrase: A phrase with a noun (or adjective or pronoun functioning as a noun) at its head. Nominal phrases typically have Subject, Object, or Indirect Object function at the clause level. Nominal phrases are also often modified by a preposition, forming a prepositional phrase.
Wu, A., & Tan, R. K. (2009; 2009). Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament: Glossary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.
[Y] to A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics by R. L. Trask (has more elaborate information than Cascadia glossary)
Keep Smiling [:)]
Martha, I apologize. I was being snarky because of my complete ignorance. I must confess that I have not used the Syntax Graphs (other than just briefly opening them to see what they looked like) so I was unaware that they used this stuff. Also it was idiotic of me to think that linguistics (a field I know absolutely zero about) is completely irrelevant to Bible study, which is very much related to language. So please forgive my stupid post. It was way out of line.
So please forgive my stupid post. It was way out of line.
You're forgiven and you don't have to buy a copy when it comes out in Logos.[:D]
you don't have to buy a copy when it comes out in Logos.
Oh, contraire! If this will help me understand the Cascadia Syntax graphs better, I must buy a copy.
I've got the Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament that came in the Scholar base packages: Silver, Gold, Platinum, Portfolio.
I have looked with curiosity at these two in Pre-Pub:
Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the Septuagint
Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the Apostolic Fathers
$300 more dollars without knowing how to decipher them is a little of a hard to sell to my wife. If I had the dictionary to go along with them I could at least sound like I know what I am talking about.
