Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Uncancelable meaning

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Uncancelable meaning
  • Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:31:34 +1000

I should also add that I understand what you were trying to do with referring to Nordlander -- to demonstrate that other linguists operate with the same methodology as you in making a scrupulous distinction between semantics and pragmatics and understanding that there is such a thing as uncancellable meaning.

However, I find it quite telling that the example you raise -- Nordlander's analysis of English "have" -- to demonstrate that you are not alone in operating with the linguistic methodology you do is in fact an extremely questionable analysis. So another linguist who operates with the same methodology produces questionable results. To me this points to the possibility that the methodological foundations -- that is, the position that there is such a thing as uncancellable meaning -- is itself questionable.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


Hi Rolf,

The thing is I do understand the distinction -- I just don't agree with it, that's all! Both you and Nordlander have failed to deal substantively with the arguments against your position. The supposedly "cancellable meaning" of English "have" which you and Nordlander have suggested has been demonstrated to be highly questionable, at least to native speakers. Your presentation fell on "rocky places" because the methodological assumptions of the position are themselves shaky, seen by the lack of substantive arguments against the critique which still stands in the absence of any meaningful refutation.

Of course "uncancellable meaning can of course never be cancelled", as you suggest. But what if "uncancellable meaning" is actually fallacious? What then? It is for Nordlander analysis of "have"? And what of the BH verbal system...?

Regards,
David Kummerow.


Dear David,

I do not see any purpose in continuing this discussion, since you appear not
to understand Nordlander´s distinction between semantics and pragmatics. I
quoted Nordlander in the first place for two reasons, 1) to show that other
linguists also deal with the concept of "uncancellable meaning", and 2) to
give an example of how other linguists distinguish between semantics and
pragmatics. But both fell on "rocky places".

BTW, uncancellable meaning can of course never be cancelled; for example,
the phrasal verb "break through" can never loose its properties telicity and
dynamicity.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page