Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan-buth <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

Rolf katav:
>ASSUMPTION: The fundamental linguistic units of a language have the same
>semantic meaning in all contexts.

Brittle.
That is a bad assumption based on every language I know. That is a
assumption that prevents POrter from saying 2+2=4 with regard to the simple
past tense in Greek. Languages are continually developing and expanding
idioms, dissolving and recombining categories. They are "never" absolutely
consistent in their 'semantic meaning' in all contexts. It is an assumption
guaranteed to produce something non-real.

E.g. Arabic lam yaktub is a negativized past. If that gets blended in with
the normal yaktub or with yaktubu the result is simply a mistake. Call lam
yaktub an idiom, or call it a vestige, it is not the same as yaktub. 

Based on real language use, you can expect to find exceptions. The
assumption is particularly probable to be misleading when the language uses
a smaller number of options. Even more misleading if the researcher were to
delete data like vayyiqtol versus veyiqtol. 

bottom line: just like children you will need to discover how consistent a
language is in mapping structures with situations. 
swans made of straw: how do you prove/disprove that most geese fly? or that
most geese are not white? 

bivraxot
Randall Buth