Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
  • Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:35:59 +0100

On 28/03/2007 20:48, Rolf Furuli wrote:
...
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". ...

It seems to me that these are properties of the core or prototypical concepts expressed by these words, rather than of the words themselves. Yes, the prototypical concepts of "run" and "sing" are durative and dynamic. But that does not prevent the extension of their meaning to cases which are not durative and dynamic. If an electric motor is running, it is surely better to consider this as a state rather than something dynamic. If I run a computer program which does something very simple and quick, this effectively not durative because it is complete in as short a time as a prototypical punctual action like popping a balloon. So I dispute that in these extended senses of "run" the word is necessarily durative and dynamic.

... 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.

It seems strange to me that within the same paragraph you can both very sensibly allow for the fuzziness of language and then claim (despite evidence to the contrary) that in certain areas this fuzziness cannot apply.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page