Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:42:49 +0100

Hi David,

I believe this has already been demonstrated to you. It's all a case of relativity. If we say somebody runs quickly we expect their run pace to be above average run pace. When we imagine somebody plodding quickly we expect the plod pace to be quicker than average but still somewhat slower than average walking pace. Your use of the word 'quickly' does not mean that the person was moving quickly. It just means that their plod pace was quicker than average.

Your example has only served to emphasise plod's uncancellable semantic meaning.

You would need to make an example like.

"He took the loaf of bread, plodded it, spread butter on the slices and gave two slices to each of his children". However, even with an example as this it could be argued that the plod in this sentence is a different word with the same spelling and pronunciation.

James Christian


Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:



Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: I’m not going to play David Kummerow’s game anymore.


Hi Karl,

I'm playing no games -- all I've been trying to do is press you to
consistently the principal that semantics is uncancellable meaning can
be maintained.

I've suggested that this cannot be the case with "plod" in English that
I hear. You misconstrue what I say and don't answer the question that if
"plod" has semantics, what is it's so-called uncancellable meaning?

Now, you dismissed it as non-standard use. But still the question
remains: what is the semantics of "plod" in such a use? If this question
cannot be answered, the theory of semantics as uncancellable meaning is
called into question.

Then I presented a couple of examples from two different languages (not
dialects or "non-standard" use!) which you asked for (!) where it is
extremely difficult to discern an uncancellable meaning across usages.
And you simply step out of the discussion at that point. So again, if
semantics as uncancellable meaning cannot be demonstrated in these
examples, the theory of semantics as uncancellable meaning is called
into question. That's what I've been maintaining all along. That was the
main point of my review. Both you and Rolf simply dodge these issues. I
can only see the same old thing that always happens on this list with
members who have non-standard views: evidence which challenges their
view is disregarded and ignored. What I take from that in this case is
that the refusal to treat actual language evidence and provide treatment
of it is that it actually cannot be done -- which is why it hasn't been
done -- and so the theory of semantics as uncancellable meaning is in
reality linguistically indefensible.

Regards,
David Kummerow.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page