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

James Read J.Read-2 at sms.ed.ac.uk
Mon Jul 6 07:44:11 EDT 2009


as far as I understand Rolf's work he claims that both tense and  
aspect are cancellable. That was the whole point of his providing  
refined definitions of imperfect and perfect aspects.

James Christian

Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com>:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list