Biblical Hebrew Forum

["C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>]

On 9/17/04 6:34 AM, "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

> Because my model turns completely upside down the almost universally
> accepted grammatical ideas of modern hebraists ...

On 9/17/04 6:46 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:

> I am aware that one of your main points
> is that semantic meaning is uncancellable (and this is what I mainly
> object to)...

I find some room for agreement with both Peter and Rolf.
The proposition: "semantic meaning is uncancellable" turns completely upside
down the almost universally accepted ideas about semantics.

However, if Rolf is drawing a distinction between the meaning attached to
the code (morphology, etc) and the inferential meaning provided by the
cognitive framework of the audience then this seems like an idea worth
exploring. 

I have been approaching the position* (without actually arriving there) that
the code is semantically vacuous. The function of the code being to indicate
syntax functions and relationships between constituents at various levels of
discourse structure. Following this line of thinking one might replace the
notion of uncancellable with non-existent.

The semantic instantiation of the text would be context sensitive, the
cognitive framework of the audience would supply the inferential mapping of
semantic values to constituents of all levels of complexity in the code.

There are weaknesses in the approach. I am well aware of them.


greetings,
Clay Bartholomew 
 
*This remind some people of certain ideas being kicked around by
transformational and/or generative types several decades ago but I don't
think that is a fruitful line of thinking. I never got too deep into that
school of thought and it was 20 years ago when I gave it up.