kwrandolph at email.com
Tue Nov 18 12:32:52 EST 2003
I hinted at it in my last note, and now state plainly, I think the reason you dont recognize core definitions is because of your Weltanschauung, your set of presuppositions. Your religion, or philosphy if you prefer to call it that, causes you to look at the data in a different manner than I and some others in this mailing list. I do not say this to disparage you or to call into question your intelligence, just to note that the difference exists.
It appears to me that you are using a mode of thought that looks at the surface details, the form, then marks and classifies all the differences that exist. Others in this mailing list use this same mode of thought, which has been used for millennia.
I and some others use a mode of thought that looks beneath the surface to look for the connections, even going back in history if needed, the function so to speak. We also look at the contexts of its usage to see if there are specialized uses that we should take note of. We also look for compound lexemes, where in the presence of another lexeme it has a different meaning (in many germanic languages, compound lexemes are expressed by combining words and/or adding prefixes and/or suffixes to make new words; in English, Chinese and many other languages, the words are kept separate though in combination give new meanings). This mode of thought also has been used for millennia.
Further comments below.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Washburn <dwashbur at nyx.net>
> On Monday 17 November 2003 12:53, Karl Randolph wrote:
> Enjoy your lexicographical back-flips if you like;
My flip flops?
To give a picture from politics:
Before the U.S. and Britain sent troops into Iraq, look at the statements,
President: It will be a long, hard war.
Democrats in Congress: It will be a cakewalk.
President: We have won a small step, there is much left to do.
Democrats in Congress, of president: He lied, *he* said it would be a cakewalk.
Back to lexicography, when you made statements concerning looking for core definitions that I never claimed, and when I wrote to correct you, you call that a flip flop?
> the fact is, the theory
> doesn't hold water. I have pointed out the lameness of the responses to my
> examples and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to waste any more
> energy on this discussion except to address this:
Just because you cant see it doesnt mean that others dont.
I mentioned my personal experience, not as proof of the concept, but that I, for one, not only see the concept, but I have found it very useful in learning foreign languages. There have been other theories mentioned on this board that I dont recognize, but I dont go out and argue against them just because I dont recognize what they say. Thats why I wondered why you put so much emotion and effort into opposing the concept of core definitions.
At this point I think we should stop as this discussion threatens to go deeply into philosophy/religion, the methodology of thought, valid and invalid presuppositions, and many more concepts far removed from Biblical Hebrew.
> That's all I have to say; you may have the last word if you wish.
> Dave Washburn
> Insert clever quote here (or not)
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
Search Smarter - get the new eXact Search Bar for free!
More information about the b-hebrew