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

David Kummerow farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Mon Jul 6 06:17:59 EDT 2009


Hi James,

Of course Rolf can define semantics for use in his work, sure. I just 
dispute that that definition corresponds to linguistic reality. I have 
substantiated my point with large amounts of evidence in my review -- 
none of which has been admitted or interacted with by Rolf. James, I am 
not arguing for any sort of uncancellable meaning being an intrinsic 
part to how semantics need be understood. Quite the contrary -- please 
read here again semantics being understood prototypically: 
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2009-June/038988.html.

Are you going to show me how wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 is imperfective?

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> Hi David,
> 
> Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com>:
> 
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> I think you may notice that you've changed lexemes, thus different
>> semantics involved.
> 
> No real big difference. All of my examples have verbs of motion with an 
> adverbial phrase that contradicts the semantics of the verbs of motion. 
> The only difference is that you used a single adverbial word whereas I 
> used an adverbial phrase.
> 
>> In this case, same meaning may be discerned across
>> different uses. I'm not disputing this type of thing at all. If you take
>> closer notice, this is entirely allowed for in the quote from my review.
>> It's the rigid definition of equating semantics to uncancellable meaning
>> is what I dispute and which has not been demonstrated yet on this list
>> despite this topic being raised again and again.
> 
> OK! So now we are getting into the semantics of 'semantics'. You are 
> arguing that there is no uncancellable meaning of semantic units and to 
> substantiate your case you argue for a different uncancellable meaning 
> of 'semantics' than the definition of 'semantics' used in Rolf's review.
> 
> All of this aside I see no reason why Rolf should not define his usage 
> of 'semantic' in his work. To the contrary, I see this as good academic 
> practice. Especially, given that if he did not define his use of the 
> term 'semantics' his usage would then be ambiguous and it would be 
> possible to misread his work.
> 
> In my 2008 dissertation on Interlingual machine translation I had to do 
> a similar thing as my use of the term 'Interlingua' was different from 
> past usage of the term in the literature. Yet if I used another term as 
> I have in the past (concept text) I run the risk of seeming ignorant of 
> the literature for not using the term 'Interlingua'. In such cases, the 
> only way to satisfy all critics is to provide a definition of your usage 
> of the term in question.
> 
> James Christian
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>> David Kummerow.
>>
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> 1) Newton watched as the apple fell upwards.
>>> 2) The Mary Rose sank from the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the
>>> water.
>>> 3) The space shuttle landed in the sky about 3,000 feet above London.
>>>
>>> No doubt the above sentences make complete sense to you with no comic
>>> value.
>>>
>>> James Christian




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list