aspect/pragmatics, was (gnomic)...
clayton stirling bartholomew
c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Tue Aug 29 12:25:17 EDT 2000
I read these posts several times while my oatmeal was in the microwave and I
have a few questions:
on 08/29/00 1:06 AM, yochanan bitan-buth wrote:
> I think the problem with semantic discussions in general is that people
> are often not sensitive to using both temporal and aspectual semantics for
> pragmatic effect. See below where I mention using Greek imperfect, not
> because a specific semantic meaning exactly matches an event in its
> context, but in order to shape and texture the whole story. (this relates
> to foreground/background studies in textlinguistics).
> I have had such a perspective on Greek for 25 years, which is why I never
> got excited about people who were in a tundry because their tight semantic
> spaces didn't match obvious reality.
What is a tight semantic space?
> Of course, that means that I will not be impressed with reductionist
> semantics, since reality doesn't work that way.
Again, what is reductionism semantics?
>I am often even more
> unimpressed with "exegetical" semantics as presented to poor budding Greek
> students who are being presented with artificial classifications of trees
> without seeing the forest. I'll be more impressed with prototypical
> functions and semantics followed up with extended pragmatic functions.
Again, what is "exegetical" semantics semantics?
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek