Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

Rolf,
you wrote:
> Dear Bryan,
>
> You ask: "When does convention stop being convention and
start being
> semantics?" This is a good question, because "pragmatic
implicature" in
> particular cases may in time become "semantic meaning".
This is the reason
> why Broman Olsen and myself use "*conversational*
pragmatic implicature" as
> a contrast to "semantic meaning".
>
> The difference, however, is quite easy to understand
(according to the
> cancelability principle of Grice). When a certain meaning
allways is
> connected with a particular form, and under no
circumstances can this
> meaning be canceled, then we have the "semantic meaning"
of the form.

But, as you say, the pragmatic convention can become
semantic.  So we must allow a language to be almost always
in a state of impurity, so to speak.  Pragmatic convention
will have completely become semantic meaning for some part
of the language users while it still remains merely
pragmatic convention for others.  IOW, at one time or
through time, some individual users of a language may use a
form as an obligation while others use it as an option.  So
we need to do diachronic analysis of the Tanakh, dialectic
analysis, and still leave room for individual differences.
It is not so simple to determine what is implicature and
what is semantic in the Tanakh--too many writers over too
long a time in too many regions in too small a corpus.

Shalom,
Bryan



B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267