Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Karl.

After I sent my last  post I realized I wrote "Harold" when I ment "Karl".

Please excuse me.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>From hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net  Wed Mar 28 16:33:49 2007
Return-Path: <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net
        (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A404C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:33:49 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [68.166.205.84] (helo=[192.168.1.33])
        by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34)
        id 1HWeq5-0001A2-Dc
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:33:49 -0400
Message-ID: <460AD115.5030105 AT earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:33:25 -0500
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: <4609A0E2.9070808 AT smbc.com.au>
        <4609A7DA.2070007 AT hotmail.com>  
<acd782170703280655k5b39cff2sb66a9fcc2ab65b14 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <002301c77172$0d4d03f0$1a46fea9@ttttt>
In-Reply-To: <002301c77172$0d4d03f0$1a46fea9@ttttt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 
4d8cbcf25a45eb95a7d551d5673cf272239a348a220c26099de883ba2fb0333a6726d123d1674493350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.166.205.84
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:33:50 -0000

Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Dear Harold,
>
> I have a few comments to your post.
>

I don't remember you answering my question about the distinction between
the aorist and the perfect in Greek, but I did not have anything to do
with the post below.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
>
>
>
>> Dear David:
>>
>> On 3/27/07, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Karl seems to hold to some similar, though not identical, notion
>>>> to what an amateur like me would understand by uncancellable intrinsic
>>>> meaning. But Karl has said he doesn't know what to make of Rolf's
>>>> theory either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Karl's approach to lexicography may perhaps be seen as analogous to
>>> Rolf's work on the verbal system. Their approach assumes that there is
>>> something uncancellable between every occurrence of a lexical item in
>>> Karl's case and every occurrence of a verb form in Rolf's.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> David Kummerow.
>>>
>> Unlike Rolf, I have never used "uncancellable" in my descriptions of
>> my methodology. That's because I don't know how it can be applied to
>> lexicography.
>>
>> Rather I have looked at definitions according to action (or in the
>> case of nouns actors) while most lexicography that I have seen
>> emphasizes semantic domains (form). Often the same action is carried
>> across several semantic domains. Thus defining according to action
>> often will see one definition, where according to form (semantic
>> domains) can see several. It's a different model. As far as I can
>> tell, there's nothing uncancellable in that.
>>
>> Karl W. Randolph.
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
>
>  As you say, there are several approaches in the lexical analysis of words,
> and each can have advantages and drawbacks. I have never seen you have used
> the word "uncancellable," but since the concept has been so much discussed,
> it would be appropriate to apply it to lexical semantics as well.
>
> In connection with Aktionsart and procedural traits (the interplay of
> Aktionsart and other parts of the clause) four of the fundamental concepts
> used are punctiliarity, durativity, dynamicity, and telicity. My exsperience
> is that a substantive whose default interpretation is punctiliar also can
> have a durative interpretation. I am not aware of a word where that is
> not possible, so I draw the conclusion that punctiliarity is "conversational
> pragmatic implicature". However, there are clear examples where the  three
> other properties represent "semantic meaning".
>
>
> For example, in English we have the words "sing" and "run," and
> corresponding words occur in Hebrew as well. These two words have the
> properties durativity (continous action) and dynamicity (change). These are
> intrinsic properties of the words, and they cannot be cancelled by any
> context. English phrasal verbs are fine examples of the property telicity
> (the end is conceptually included). Phrasal verbs like "break through" and
> "bring back" have the intrinsic properties telicity and dynamicity, and
> perhaps also durativity. No context can cancel the telicity and dynamicity
> of these verbs. Thus the properties are uncancellable and represent
> "semantic meaning". In addition to these properties, lexical properties can
> also have uncancellable parts, as the mentioned example "slowly" and "plod".
>
> When I say that "the words" have an intrinsic meaning, an explanation is
> needed. I believe that letters and sounds that communicate words are without
> any meaning (cf. the work of de Saussure), but they signal concepts in the
> minds of people speaking the same language. Such a concept tends to have a
> rather clear necleus but becomes more fuzzy towards the edges. The concepts
> of different classes of words (e.g., fully referential; partly referential;
> non-referential etc) may be somewhat different, and whether intrinsic
> properties can be seen or not varies. But in the case of the words  "run;
> sing; break through; bring back" intrinsic uncancellable properties
> (=semantic meaning) can be clearly seen. Therefore, when I use "word" in
> this context, I refer to the concept in the mind signalled by the sounds
> ofletters of each word.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>