Prototype Theory and Hebrew Tense/Aspect
kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi
Sat Dec 18 04:48:33 EST 1999
I meant to send this to the list, but I just noticed that I had sent it
privately. So here is another try. Sorry for the delay.
Dave Washburn wrote:
> I agree that many grammars give this impression. My problem is, I
> see them going from there into a jumble of categories that do
> nothing more than describe phenomena rather than try to explain
> how they were generated and what ties them together.
Here a good grasp of category extension might help (eg. chapters 6 and 7
of Taylor's book). There are more abstract prototypes (or schemata) that
bind more specific (ie. less schematic) prototypes together. The
interrelated prototypes are usually metaphorically or metonymically
related (I am using these terms in Taylor's sense).
More information about the b-hebrew