aspect/pragmatics, was (gnomic)...

clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Tue Aug 29 12:25:17 EDT 2000


Randall,

I read these posts several times while my oatmeal was in the microwave and I
have a few questions:


on 08/29/00 1:06 AM, yochanan bitan-buth wrote:

> I think the problem with  semantic discussions in general is that people
> are often not sensitive to using both temporal and aspectual semantics for
> pragmatic effect. See below where I mention using Greek imperfect, not
> because a specific semantic meaning exactly matches an event in its
> context, but in order to shape and texture the whole story. (this relates
> to foreground/background studies in textlinguistics).
> I have had such a perspective on Greek for 25 years, which is why I never
> got excited about people who were in a tundry because their tight semantic
> spaces didn't match obvious reality.

What is a tight semantic space?

> 
> Of course, that means that I will not be impressed with reductionist
> semantics, since reality doesn't work that way.

Again, what is reductionism semantics?

>I am often even more
> unimpressed with "exegetical" semantics as presented to poor budding Greek
> students who are being presented with artificial classifications of trees
> without seeing the forest. I'll be more impressed with prototypical
> functions and semantics followed up with extended pragmatic functions.

Again, what is "exegetical" semantics semantics?

Clay

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062





More information about the B-Greek mailing list