Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

> David:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM, David 
Kummerow<farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Using your standard above, except applying it to me and the way I have
>>> heard and read the term, your examples are nonsense. Oxymoron. They do
>>> not communicate. To the people around me, you are Humpty Dumpty, willy
>>> nilly changing the meanings of words for your own purposes with no eye
>>> towards communicating to the world.
>> Karl, to me these examples do in fact communicate and it is clear what
>> is meant in each use. It is not Humpty Dumpty English, but acceptable
>> English in my part of the world.
>>
> That’s just the point, in your corner of the world it may be normal,
> but to the rest of the world it’s nonsense, oxymoronic.


And that's just the point I'm making, which you are simply refusing to 
answer. In my part of the world it does make sense. And for someone who 
wants to maintain a definition of semantics that says semantics is 
uncancellable meaning, then at some point such data needs to be reckoned 
with. So if we are to have semantics as uncancellable meaning in the 
English I speak and others around me, what is the uncancellable meaning 
of "plod"?

Your persistence, and also Rolf's, in dodging this type of question 
simply highlights the fact to me that you are both don't want to 
confront such data head on as it challenges the way you approach 
language. You both seem to maintain your theory by turning a blind eye 
to data which challenges your assumptions.

>
>>> The question then becomes, who is correct? Which use is the standard
>>> use that people can refer to for effective communication? When
>>> checking reference works from international sources, if they agreed
>>> with you, then I would have to reconsider my understanding of the term
>>> in order to communicate with the world at large. But they don’t.
>>> Without exception, all the reference works I consulted give a meaning
>>> that is consistent with what I hear, and at variance with yours.
>>> Therefore, I can conclude that your data is non-standard, dialectal,
>>> not only can be, but should be, ignored when dealing with standard
>>> usage (possibly mentioned in a footnote).
>> Sure it might be non-standard to you circles.
>
> This is why I checked outside of my circles, to publishers in London,
> New York, Chicago, San Francisco, etc., to see which meaning is found
> outside of my circles. The result is that your use is unique, hence
> dialectal, non-standard and therefore should be ignored as an outlier.
> This is also why I call your approach solipsistic, as you are not
> willing to accept data from outside your immediate experience.

(I see you didn't ask an Australians, or Queenslanders, or rural 
Queenslanders.)

But still, what is the semantics of "plod" in my dialect? Why are you 
dodging this question so fiercely?

>
>> That still doesn't mean
>> that we can't ask the question: if semantics is meaning which
>> uncancellable across the uses of a lexeme etc. in a language or dialect,
>> what is the semantics of "plod" in such a dialect?
>>
> This is where you are wrong. Dialectal, by definition, breaks the
> rules of standard usage, including uncancellable meaning.
>
> BTW, I noticed another dialectal usage in your response: you
> consistently wrote “you” where standard English calls for “your”. This
> is close enough that it is readily understood, unlike an oxymoron like
> “quickly plod”.

"You" instead of "your" is simply a typo due to hasty typing -- please 
don't make too much of it!

>
>> Really, this is just a case in point for me. I've raised numerous areas
>> of language in my review where multifunctionality is the order of the
>> day and where some so-called uncancellable meaning can not be discerned
>> across the various uses. Of course, none of which Rolf has treated nor
>> admits he's considered as part of my criticism of his approach.
>>
> Seeing as you misused the concepts above, how can I trust your
> analysis that follows?

Because they are not what I think myself, but the standard position in 
functionalist linguistics.

You have an unfair way with words, Karl.

>
>> …
>>
>> Again, I repeat: From you point of view. Yet the question still remains:
>> for those who see semantic meaning as uncancellable meaning, which is
>> the semantics of "plod" in such a non-standard dialect (to use your
>> terms)? If uncancellable meaning is supposed to exist, please show the
>> uncancellable meaning of "plod" across the examples we've been 
considering.
>>
> Dialectal semantic domain is a different semantic domain, not the same
> as standard usage. You are demanding that different semantic domains
> be treated as the same, which is nonsense.

But within a dialectical domain, there must still be semantics, no? For 
me, this is my language -- my "dialect" of English is my language. And 
if the linguistic construct of "semantics" is appropriate for language, 
dialect or otherwise, then it is appropriate to study a dialect in and 
of itself and press it for its semantics. So considering my dialect in 
and of itself, what is the semantics of "plod"? This must be reconciled 
if equating semantics to uncancellable meaning is to be defended. If it 
can't, then here is one broken link in the chain of the principal of 
uncancellable meaning. And if uncancellable meaning as a principal 
doesn't hold in one place, why should it hold in others?

>
>>> Because you apparently don’t understand what Rolf wrote about, your
>>> criticism of Rolf’s work is flawed.
>> I'm not sure what you mean. "Plod" is just the case in point.
>
> You obviously missed it in reference to “plod”, not recognizing that
> dialectal semantic domain and the uncancellable meaning found within
> it are not the same as standard usage semantic domain and the
> uncancellable meaning found within it. So where else did you miss it?

The thing is, it does "mean" in my language -- just that there isn't an 
"uncancellable meaning" that is common to all uses. But if we follow 
what you seem to be suggesting, then we can write off dialects from 
discussion because they don't have semantics. Or to put it another way, 
we can write of their data because they challenge the assumption that 
semantics in language is uncancellable meaning.

>
> [cut out discussion]
>
> I have not studied these theories of epistemology and linguistics, so
> I don’t know if you or Rolf is right in their applications. Bus seeing
> as you are so wrong in the above counts against you here.

Again, you have an unfair way with words. I do not consider that I am 
wrong. I attempt to answer your questions as best I can, and all I get 
in return is my questions to you unanswered, dodged, or flippantly 
rejected. Again I repeat: if semantics is an appropriate linguistic 
construct to bring to the analysis of language, it is appropriate in the 
analysis of a "standard" dialect as well as "non-standard". There isn't 
one definition of semantics that is applicable for "standard" dialects 
and another for "non-standard" dialects. A dialect is a linguistic 
system operating as a system same as any other language. And considering 
it in and of itself, it has semantics like every other language. But you 
seem to want to say that dialects are different, with rules of their 
own, that overturn the principals of language we can construct from 
"standard" dialects. Is this the case? Please lay your cards openly on 
the table. Because if it is, it would be true to say that this is not 
the way the linguistic community treats these issues.


>> Karl, all I've been doing here is interacting with the example Rolf gave
>> and asked for me to disprove. Since it is an English example, I can
>> really only approach it from my own familiarity and knowledge of the
>> language.
>
> That is solipsism. By definition. You need to go beyond your solipsism
> in order to recognize whether or not your personal experience
> represents the mainstream of usage, or if it is in fact dialectal and
> non-standard.

Look, I realise that my use of "plod" is non-standard. But to me, your 
own use is non-standard. Our language is our language. Sure, in your 
dialect, there might be a meaning to "plod" which carries across its 
uses. That's fine, I have no problem with that. My only problem with 
that is then assuming that this proves that semantics is uncancellable 
meaning. Because I can point out that in my own language use, there is 
not an uncancellable meaning to "plod". That's the point. If you want to 
maintain that semantics is uncancellable meaning, then you need to 
answer cases such as this that openly lay challenge to your assumption.

>
>> Again, I repeat: From you point of view. Yet the question
>> still remains: for those who see semantic meaning as uncancellable
>> meaning, which is the semantics of "plod" in such a non-standard dialect
>> (to use your terms)? If uncancellable meaning is supposed to exist,
>> please show the uncancellable meaning of "plod" across the examples
>> we've been considering.
>>
>> But like I said before, these pages and pages of documentation I gave in
>> my review where such uncancellable meaning cannot be discerned that
>> cannot be put down to "dialectal experience and solipsism". That's not a
>> fair claim, esp. as you seem to have not read the review as so are not
>> in a position to say that my presentation there is only one of
>> "dialectal experience and solipsism".
>>
> You have not presented your “pages and pages of documentation” on this
> forum, rather what you have presented are merely dialectal experience
> and solipsism. You admitted as much at the beginning of the upper
> paragraph.

I couple of examples for you to consider since you are having such a 
hard time coming to terms with "plod".

In Lyélé (Gur, Benue-Congo,  Niger-Congo; Burkina Faso) there is 
mutifunctionality evident in the area of demonstratives and 
interrogatives (and also anaphora, by the way) where it is difficult to 
see an uncancellable meaning across the uses. In (1a), kèê functions as 
an indefinite interrogative, while in (1b) it functions as a proximal 
demonstrative. What is the uncancellable meaning between these two examples?

(1) Showalter 1986: 210
    a. jì    kèê
       house DEM/INT
       ‘Which house?’

    b. jìí   kèê
       house DEM/INT
       ‘This house.’

In Udihe (Tungusic; eastern Siberia) there is multifunctionality between 
demonstratives and anaphoric pronouns where it is difficult to see an 
uncancellable meaning. In (2a), uti functions as a distal demonstrative, 
while in (2b) it functions as a third-person pronoun. What is the 
uncancellable meaning between these two examples?

(2) Nikolaeva and Tolskaya 2001: 346, 758
    a. J’eu bi:-ni uti?
       What be-3SG that
       ‘What is that?’

    b. Bi ta:mati   zueze-we  gada:-mi.    Uligdig’a bi-s’e  uti
       me last.year table-ACC buy.PAST-1SG beautiful be-PERF that
       ‘Last year I bought a table. It was beautiful.’

>
> Your repeated use of “From you point of view.” makes me wonder if you
> approach this question from a post-modern philosophical standpoint. If
> so, then your critique of Rolf represents merely a personal opinion,
> and not an objective scholarly work, a criticism of your approach
> strengthened by your admission of solipsism in your understanding of
> language.

Karl, I approach this question from the viewpoint of having read widely 
in typological literature. I approach the question as a typologist. With 
this background, I cannot see that saying that semantics is 
uncancellable meaning is defensible. And all I've seen the last few 
years on this forum makes me more certain of this.

>
> Karl W. Randolph.

Regards,
David Kummerow.