Linguistic assumptions, long (Rolf, also Dave)
clayton stirling bartholomew
c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jul 4 04:45:08 EDT 2000
on 07/03/00 2:49 PM, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
> People who would never dream of doing a concordant translation in terms of
> lexical semantics will turn right around and defend to the death a concordant
> translation in terms of verb aspect marking or some other feature of syntax.
Just after sending this I noticed that this was not well stated. These
people really are not promoting concordant translation, rather, they are
promoting the idea that verb aspect marking has some "core" of
semanitc-functional significance which can be traced through ever instance
of use. This may be the same idea as what you folks are calling a
"non-cancelable" semanitc-functional significance. If that is what you mean
by this term then I am siding with the people who say there is NO
"non-cancelable" semanitc-functional significance associated with ANY formal
feature such as verb aspect marking.
There is a certain vague similarity between this "non-cancelable"
semanitc/functional significance and concordant translation but it is not a
good way to illustrate the issue. Since those who hold to the
"non-cancelable" semanitc/functional significance of verb aspect marking
would probably not end up doing anything like concordant translation as a
result of holding this position.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the b-hebrew