[b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
kwrandolph at email.com
Thu Nov 17 18:38:58 EST 2005
The "core meaning" (which I think you introduced in this
discussion) goes back to our discussions on whether or
not lexemes have basically one meaning or many. As for
me, I still maintain that lexemes have one basic meaning
for each time period, but that they can change over time.
Also we need to keep in mind complex lexemes (where
two or more lexemes used consistently together can have
its own meaning separate from each component lexeme)
and idiomatic phrases.
That one meaning may have a broad semantic use, or
narrow one, or may even be a total subset of another one,
but that doesn't change the basic pattern.
This is the way people use language.
Translators often find that the semantic range of one
lexeme in an originating language may overlap two or
more semantic ranges in a receiving language, hence an
accurate translation can use two or more lexemes to
render the meaning of the originating language. But that's
a problem of translation, not language use.
What do you mean by "in the perception of the person
using the word"? To me it sounds like you are limiting it to
a western cultural concept. Just because someone may
perceive an event as taking place much longer than his
life span away does not mean that his perception thereof
is eternity. That certainly is not my perception and I see no
reason for the ancients to be any different.
To put this question in context, many Moslems are still
angry at Charles Martel for stopping them on the road to
Paris, and still mourn the loss of Andulasia. How many of
us westerners even remember those events? And they
are particularly piqued at the Roman Catholic Church for
copying their concept of Jihad and using it against them.
Likewise, I think your view of (WLM is too narrow.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter at qaya.org>
To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:34:36 +0000
> On 17/11/2005 20:20, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > Dave:
> > That it is used for more than just a few cases for meanings other
> > than "eternity" or "forever", indicates that "eternity" and
> > "forever" are not its core meaning. ...
> No, Karl. The fact that this word, like many others, is used in a
> variety of ways indicates that words do not have a "core meaning"
> to which all or most occurrences conform. Words just don't work
> like that.
> Anyway, I have STILL not seen any examples where the word does not
> mean "forever", at least in the perception of the person using the
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
More information about the b-hebrew