Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

David:

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> 
wrote:
>
>  > 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.

I did answer it. I just did not give the answer that you want.

>
> (I see you didn't ask an Australians, or Queenslanders, or rural
> Queenslanders.)
>
I didn’t have access to them. Is that where your dialect comes from?

> But still, what is the semantics of "plod" in my dialect? Why are you
> dodging this question so fiercely?
>
What it means in your dialect is irrelevant to standard English. Since
this is a discussion about standard English, we must ignore your
dialect. End of story.

This is the answer that you don’t want to hear, and that you refuse to accept.

>
> "You" instead of "your" is simply a typo due to hasty typing -- please
> don't make too much of it!
>
A typo is once, maybe twice, but not consistently as you did.

>
> 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"?

I have no idea within your dialect, but that is irrelevant to a study
of international standard English.

> This must be reconciled
> if equating semantics to uncancellable meaning is to be defended.

No it doesn’t, because the semantics of dialect are not the same as
those of the standard language.

I have other things to do, so must be on my way. I have already given
the same answers numerous times, and they are not flippant. If you
want to continue down a path that is weird and off-beat, go ahead, I’m
going elsewhere.

Karl W. Randolph.