Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Tuesday 30 November 2004 06:24, Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 30/11/2004 06:55, Dave Washburn wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >You correctly discern my real question.  Based on this paragraph, I'm not
> > sure what your definition of "meaning" is.  I don't want to do a Clinton
> > here, but it seems to me that you're defining "means" in a somewhat
> > different way than several others here do.  So I could do with some
> > clarification so I can follow you correctly.  If "meaning" is not
> > something uncancelable, what are the circumstances in which (by which?)
> > that "meaning" of a form may be canceled?  If sequence is encoded in the
> > verb form, how does a speaker or writer get around that?  If meaning is
> > something other than something encoded in the form, what exactly is it,
> > and if it's not a hard-and-fast feature of the form, how can we discern
> > that it's there at all?  These sorts of questions are at the heart of my
> > research, and I anxiously await your input.
>
> Dave, I suggest that you read something about Relevance Theory. Although
> I have some criticisms of the theory and especially how it has been
> applied to translation, it has thoroughly debunked the idea that meaning
> is encoded in form in the sense that you seem to understand here. For
> some of my take on Relevance Theory and links to literature, see
> http://www.qaya.org/academic/bibletranslation/Holy%20Communicative.zip -
> this paper will be published soon, but the section on Relevance Theory
> has been shortened for publication.

Hi Peter,
I don't claim that "meaning" is encoded in a form, in fact that was my 
question, and that was why I brought in the citations from other grammarians 
who do in fact make such a claim.  I'm not sure where I stand on this 
question, which is why I'm so interested to hear Bryan expand on his 
comments.  That said, I'll be happy to look at your paper, and I hope we'll 
be able to interact about it some when I get done.  Can you suggest one 
(fairly easily obtainable!) introductory work on Relevance Theory that I can 
examine in addition?

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk