Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Tuesday 23 August 2005 10:01, Karl Randolph wrote:

[snip]
> As for lexemes having diverse meanings, while I don't rule
> that out, after studying a few foreign languages I have
> found that lexemes having diverse meanings are quite rare.
> That is not the same as recognizing that a lexeme may have
> such a broad meaning that it can be translated by several
> lexemes in another language, nor is it a claim that all
> lexemes have narrowly defined boundaries in meaning,
> rather a recognition that it is rare for a lexeme to have
> both one meaning and its near opposite, or even a
> completely unrelated one. Biblical Hebrew is no exception.
> (This is one area where I, as a lexicographer, disagree
> with Reinier de Blois and his lexicon according to
> semantic domains.)

I'm not sure what languages you have studied, but English apparently isn't 
one 
of them.  Consider the word "strike": it can mean to hit (strike the rock and 
water will come out), to miss (in baseball), to begin something (strike up a 
conversation), to stop something (go on strike), a positive event (strike a 
bargain), a negative event (strike that from the record), to name just a few. 
 
As I have said before, words mean what they mean because a language group or 
subgroup chooses to use them that way.  Words have no "inherent" or "root" 
meaning and it is not unusual at all for a word (or lexeme, to use your term) 
to have as many meanings as the users agree upon.  So I'm afraid your basic 
premise about lexemes is built on a fallacy, unfortunately.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have 
married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)