Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

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/