@mbm29414 I used that same intro textbook. Are you aware of the videos Mounce made?

I paid $49 for one year access and listened to most of them repeatedly. To me it’s (almost) as good as a real live teacher. Plus it’s interesting to hear his theories about language learning, etc. I imagine everybody is different, but he repeatedly advises that we make sure to learn, e.g., all of the noun inflections solidly before moving on to verbs, suggesting that otherwise we’ll confuse them.

And I’m thinking, "Why would I spend time memorizing third declension nouns before learning anything about verbs? You can’t read without verbs!"

He obviously thinks about it differently, probably because he’s such a morphology guy, so learning that stuff is at the core of learning the language for him. He has a theory (stated in those lectures or on the blog, can’t recall) that all Greek verbs are regular. If you learn enough rules, take into account letters that no longer exist in Koine, etc. And he has a book to prove it. (Not recommending that one for language learning, although it’s interesting.)

But I’m more like you seem to be - I’m comfortable reading and listening even when I don’t understand most of it, and eventually picking it up. I’m not familiar with the UBS audiobook, but I’ve used these recordings extensively for memorizing. I’ve been in touch with the guy who made them who has suggested that they’ll be completed in the next few months, but what’s there now is plenty to get started on.

1 John and John’s Gospel are the easiest, in my opinion, both for reading and listening.

Also, along the lines of “I don’t care if I master this before moving onto the next thing,” I purchased and started reading Dan Wallace’s syntax book long before actually learning everything in BBG. To me, it was incredibly motivating because it makes you realize how the grammar you’re learning helps with exegesis.

I devoured that book shortly after purchasing it, although I forget portions of it on a regular basis, which is one thing this chat room is good for. :-)

@Susan Yeah, that! Drives me nuts. There is a prominent aspect to his approach that says "This is a code, and what I'm going to do is teach you to decode the GNT. And hey! It looks a lot like the NASB when you do!" Harumph.

Having said which, it has launched many into first-hand reading of the New Testament in Koine so -- I'll shut up now. :)

@Susan IMO (and only that) "regular" does not mean "I can give you an historical explanation for...". If he means "everything has an explanation in historical linguistics", that's a very idiosyncratic way of understanding "regular/irregular", and not how speakers/readers at any given point tend to operate.

(This is what happens when you look at "chat" in the cracks of a day full of meetings! Vent!)

@Davïd He’s an ESV guy, though, I think (on the translation committee). I have a lot of respect for his approach (and he basically managed to teach me even though I disagree!); that’s just not how I learn.

@Susan Fair enough. And what my "concession" had in mind. I still think it's a weird way to organize ab initio learning of NT Greek. :)

@Davïd Right, and I’m guessing the statement was made with some sensitivity to that. He thinks it makes it easier to learn, thinking like that.

@Susan Btw - I'm wanting to pick up a couple earlier pings, only they actually take "thought", unlike these salvos....

@Susan Yeah - I understand. I have (once) "worked" through his grammar tutoring someone who actually came on quite strong. I know it can be done.

@Davïd For the purposes of a book, I really like it. I want a book that is organized and I know where to find things. I get confused by other approaches. (“Discourse based?” Not sure what that means, but it didn’t make a lot of sense to me.)

@Susan Interesting - almost like a mini reference grammar, I suppose, with elements handled so discretely.

But I spent more time with the GNT that with BBG starting shortly after I learned the alphabet...

Do you have a suggestion (primarily for @mbm29414) for a different intro grammar?

@Susan Hmmm - was afraid that might come up. Actually -- no! :) What you did (taking on "syntax" stuff while doing grammar) might seem counter-intuitive, but would suggest some of the "language" elements to counteract the "code/decode" effect.

@Davïd Unrelated: Is it accepted to make ‘none’ a plural subject? (I know it’s done colloquially, but...) I’m looking at a proof wherein the editor changed my 'If none of the above lines of inquiry yields...’ to ‘If none.....yield...’ and trying to decide whether to argue with him.

@Susan Robert Funk's grammar is highly regarded by some who are expert -- how good it is as primary teaching grammar or supplement, I'm not sure.

@Susan Not in British English. "None" is singular and takes singular verbs -- that would be a hard-fast rule in my neck of the woods.

Argue. B-)

@Davïd Good. I’ll try to find a polite way to point that out. (I’ve actually had exactly the same problem in something else where I didn’t catch it in the proof and and have been haunted by it since...)

See the usage section - which suggests not "hard fast", but I would still stick to your guns.

Should “consolidated” be “reconciled”?

@Davïd Thanks. I did that one but finally gave up on correcting comma errors introduced by the editor. A comma between two parts of a compound subject and then one to separate subject and verb, just for good measure.

@Susan >.< Now that would drive one crazy. Had one like that a while ago, although tbf none of the rash of commas that appeared was actually "wrong".

While we're at it :) British convention is that punctuation is inside/outside quote marks depending whether it "belongs". See what I did there? But: "I did that one but finally gave up on correcting comma errors introduced by the editor." Like that.

@Susan Yep.

@Davïd Wait, why did that come up? Interesting, though. My impression was that (at least periods and commas) always go inside, regardless of the “semantics.” Is that American, or I’m just wrong?

Oh, but I put that question mark outside: “reconciled”?

@Susan It came up in association with an earlier edit (I think). It's "American/British" differing conventions. In UK practice, semantics is "everything".

@Susan Ah - so you did! :)

@Davïd Thank you for that verb. I’m pretty sure several are wrong in what I sent back, but the instructions are not to change things that are “a matter of style.” (“.)

@Susan lol. :) (And which "verb"?)

@Davïd My feeling is that question marks are different. Or maybe I like semantics too. :-)

@Davïd 'None was.'

:) Man, I'm slow today. (Like most days, I suppose!)

@Davïd Oh, that. Mostly I just removed a bunch.

Oh, I see, the edit summary. OK, there I was just wrong!

@Susan :) On the UK convention for quotation marks, here's an extract from the MHRA Style Guide. For the banter.

@e.s.kohen Oops, sorry about that. I didn’t know about the differing rules for that.

@Davïd I’m sympathizing.

@Susan Susan, I am very sorry about my editing skill. I gather the comment above was about my own comma splices.

@e.s.kohen Apparently I don’t know all the rules either. :-) I wasn’t meaning to be critical, really just pointing out that I was wrong in my suggestion that you were wrong in the edit summary.

If it is any consolation, I am actually researching editing methodologies, and trying it here. Unfortunately, I am very bad.

No, its okay. I see that you saw it as the "English" style. .. and it is not the case.

Though, pretty close... It is practiced in Technical Writing, as well, simply because the text is easier to search and parse.

But there is no excuse for the comma splices, and host of other issues I have. :(

I am quite the fan of yours.

Very diplomatic.

Thank you again. I will do my best to keep my "Stream of Thought" commas from popping up all the time.

@MarkEdward Re. What happens if the OP prefers the answer that has inaccurate or misleading information? Occasionally, we can actually do something about it. (That one was showing up on top of yours because it had a check mark. No more!)