Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Contextual Semantic Domains

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Contextual Semantic Domains
  • Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:23:27 -0500

Dear Reinier de Blois:

Thank you for your detailed answer.

I wonder how to define semantic domains? How do we adjust when the semantic
domains in one language do not match with those in another language?

To go back to your example, birds (avia) in English are defined by a certain
pattern of traits: feathers, warm-blooded, lay eggs, bills. As far as I know,
there are no outliers. Bats and flying insects don’t have those traits,
therefore they are not birds. Penguins and ostriches do have those traits,
therefore they are birds.

Another example are mammals (mammalia) are defined by warm blood, fur (or
hair), give birth to live young, provide milk for their young. Whales, bats,
sheep, etc. all have those traits, therefore they are mammals. There are only
two outliers, if I remember correctly, both from Australia, the duck billed
platypus which lays eggs and has a bill but otherwise is clearly a mammal,
and I forgot the other one.

But when we look at Biblical Hebrew, we don’t find these semantic domains.
(WP in Hebrew refers to flying creatures, which includes flying insects and
bats, as well as birds. $RC [sheretz] includes non-flying insects, and what
else? BHMH includes larger animals such as dinosaurs, cattle and sheep, and
what else? And “fish” includes dolphins, whales and other swimming creatures.
The reason I asked “and what else?” is because Tanakh doesn’t define those
semantic domains, though it mentions them. I know of no other source that
defines them.

Outside of animalia, how many of our semantic domains are the same as ancient
Hebrew semantic domains? Could we misunderstand Biblical Hebrew by
shoehorning Hebrew concepts into English semantic domains? In the examples
above, it seems that English semantic domains tend towards form, while the
ancient Hebrew ones tend towards function. For example, it is the same action
when thieves hide themselves in order to ambush victims, and for refugees to
hide themselves from pursuing soldiers. The object in both is not t o be seen
when they don’t want to be seen.

How does one recognize when words are used in irony, as euphemisms, satire or
other literary effects? Do we risk not having a correct understanding of
words if we don’t make allowances for such?

Again, thanks for your response.

Karl W. Randolph.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page