Root Fallacy

[gbausc]

Rob,
You wrote:

[quote=D.A. Carson in "Exegetical Fallacies" p. 28]
One of the most enduring errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send)? In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the "literal" meaning of monogenes is "only begotten." Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason that agapao is used?
All of this is linguistic nonsense.

The fallacy you quote here is referring to Greek Primacists' arguments. Hence my question , "Did false arguments used by Greek Primacists convince you Greek Primacists were right ?"

If Greek Primacists are wrong to use root meanings to define words and Peshitta Primacists are wrong to use root meanings to define words, how does this argument move you from Peshitta Primacy to Greek Primacy, since both parties use the same argument and method ?

Dave B