[B-Greek] APOLUTRWSIS
Bert de Haan
b_dehaan at sympatico.ca
Mon Mar 19 21:22:56 EDT 2007
"Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net> wrote:
>Shall we follow Plato or Aristotle here? "Innate" and "elephant" are both
words
>in English with quite restricted semantic ranges, so that your example
>really
>doesn't relate. Would you care to tell me what the innate meanings of the
>words
>"run" and "scan" are in English? I am supplying English examples because
>it
>makes the point better for us native English (or American) speakers than
>Greek,
>for which it is very difficult for modern students to "feel" the semantic
>range
>of the word in the same way an ancient would have.
>
>
A while back Jan Hoogland <hoogland at hawaii.rr.com> offered an article for
review and comments on B-Greek that deals with this topic quite a bit.
I have not finished it yet but I remembered that he used the example "run"
to demonstrate that words do have intrinsic meanings. Here is a quote:
" Compare, for example, the meaning of the word run in the sentences he runs
a business and he runs a stop sign. The occurrences of the word run in these
sentences differ in meaning, the difference being induced by the context
rather than being inherent in the word run itself. Inherent in the word run
in both contexts is only the idea of moving well.<....snip.....>How can we
manage by assigning only a single intrinsic meaning to the word run? It is
possible by noticing that run in itself only generates in the mind a notion
of moving well. A check on all thirty specific dictionary meanings of the
verb run reveals that indeed every entry has something to do with moving
well, some may be farfetched or abstract, but the connection is unmistakable
in all cases. The context then adds further meaning to the point where we
arrive at each specific use of run. Note that the context can only add
meaning to the intrinsic meaning of run, but does not and cannot provide the
intrinsic meaning itself. This process of assembling the intended meaning of
a sentence is one of addition rather than one of elimination, as the concept
of multiple meanings of a word requires. The clarity of meaning of a
sentence obtained in this way is quite surprising, considering such a large
variety in usage. The clarity is a consequence of adhering to a single
intrinsic meaning of a word.<...snip...>An example may show how the mind
builds up the meaning of a sentence. By slowly reading the sentence: He ran
the car into the ditch, it will be noticed that ran by itself indicates no
more than that something is moving well. No appeal by the mind is being made
to the specific meanings of run, only a curiosity is present as to how the
sentence is going to proceed. The mention of the car adds considerable
meaning, but again it does not start an elimination process of the possible
specific meanings of run or car; it only adds further meaning to the
developing sentence. The addition of into and the ditch completes the
meaning of the sentence and establishes a specific use of ran, which in this
case is driving an automobile too fast.
As the verb run has thirty specific meanings, car three, into six and bush
one, we are faced with 540 combinations of meaning from which we have to
somehow select the intended combination. Experience shows that anybody
understands the intended meaning instantly and without fail, indicating that
the process is additive, single meaning by single meaning. This proves that
the thirty different specific meanings are not independent meanings but are
thirty different uses of a single intrinsic meaning. Note that when ran is
replaced by xxx, the intrinsic meaning of ran cannot be retrieved by the
context, as it could stand for crashed, tumbled, flew, etc. The assignment
of a single intrinsic meaning to a word is fundamental to the concept of
word meaning and the differentiation between intrinsic meaning and usage
will prove to be essential."
(Maybe this will whet the apatite for the rest of the article.)
Bert de Haan.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list