Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew
  • Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:36:06 -0000

Dear David,

Two short comments:

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew

snip


. There is often no such thing as
"uncancellable intrinsic meaning", which you maintain and assume in your
research. Eg, you claimed that negation in Hebrew was uncancellable, but
I brought forth some research to show that may not actually be the case.

RF
This is not correct, I have not said that negation in Hebrew is uncancelable; please look at the post again. I just suggested a test, in order to show that other areas than verbs can be tested.


snip

You see, your quest is for restricted environments where you can
seemingly diagnose "uncancellable intrinsic meaning". Again, this is
because there is a divorce for you between linguistic convention and
semantic meaning. As such, you disregard all the other times a
particular verb form occurs to focus on these restricted examples.
Psycholinguistic research would suggest that this is in error and that
the other examples also impact upon meaning, and in some areas of
grammar perhaps even more so.

Ten years ago I studied applied linguistics, and a great part of our curriculum was the study of Psycholinguistics. In my first book on Bible translation I used several arguments from Psycholinguistics in a discussion of what "lexical mening" is, including arguments based on the Prototyp Theory. I referred to the books "The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholiguistics" (1989) and "Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon" (1993), both written by J. Aitchison. I agree that the Prototyp Theory is fine in connection with the mental lexicon and lexical semantics. This theory is based on informants, on experiments with living people. These experiments have suggested that concepts signaled by words exist in the mind, yes, they have even suggested that word classes exist in the mind. But they have not suggested that grammatical categories, such as indirect objects or conjugations exist in the mind in the same way as lexical concepts do. (For those who have not studied Psycholinguistics: This is not to say that grammar cannot be memorized, which is something different.) Therefore, I do not see there is reason to apply the Prototyp Theory to grammatical categories, particularly not in a dead language. This would be highly speculative


Regards,
David Kummerow.
_______________________________________________

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page