Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Peter:

The "core meaning" (which I think you introduced in this 
discussion) goes back to our discussions on whether or 
not lexemes have basically one meaning or many. As for 
me, I still maintain that lexemes have one basic meaning 
for each time period, but that they can change over time. 
Also we need to keep in mind complex lexemes (where 
two or more lexemes used consistently together can have 
its own meaning separate from each component lexeme) 
and idiomatic phrases.

That one meaning may have a broad semantic use, or 
narrow one, or may even be a total subset of another one, 
but that doesn't change the basic pattern.

This is the way people use language.

Translators often find that the semantic range of one 
lexeme in an originating language may overlap two or 
more semantic ranges in a receiving language, hence an 
accurate translation can use two or more lexemes to 
render the meaning of the originating language. But that's 
a problem of translation, not language use.

What do you mean by "in the perception of the person 
using the word"? To me it sounds like you are limiting it to 
a western cultural concept. Just because someone may 
perceive an event as taking place much longer than his 
life span away does not mean that his perception thereof 
is eternity. That certainly is not my perception and I see no 
reason for the ancients to be any different.

To put this question in context, many Moslems are still 
angry at Charles Martel for stopping them on the road to 
Paris, and still mourn the loss of Andulasia. How many of 
us westerners even remember those events? And they 
are particularly piqued at the Roman Catholic Church for 
copying their concept of Jihad and using it against them. 

Likewise, I think your view of (WLM is too narrow.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:34:36 +0000

> 
> On 17/11/2005 20:20, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > Dave:
> >
> > That it is used for more than just a few cases for meanings other 
> > than "eternity" or "forever", indicates that "eternity" and 
> > "forever" are not its core meaning. ...
> >
> 
> No, Karl. The fact that this word, like many others, is used in a 
> variety of ways indicates that words do not have a "core meaning" 
> to which all or most occurrences conform. Words just don't work 
> like that.
> 
> Anyway, I have STILL not seen any examples where the word does not 
> mean "forever", at least in the perception of the person using the 
> word.
> 
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/


-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/