Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

Hi David,

I believe this has already been demonstrated to you. It's all a case  
of relativity. If we say somebody runs quickly we expect their run  
pace to be above average run pace. When we imagine somebody plodding  
quickly we expect the plod pace to be quicker than average but still  
somewhat slower than average walking pace. Your use of the word  
'quickly' does not mean that the person was moving quickly. It just  
means that their plod pace was quicker than average.

Your example has only served to emphasise plod's uncancellable  
semantic meaning.

You would need to make an example like.

"He took the loaf of bread, plodded it, spread butter on the slices  
and gave two slices to each of his children". However, even with an  
example as this it could be argued that the plod in this sentence is a  
different word with the same spelling and pronunciation.

James Christian


Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:

> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> > Ps: I’m not going to play David Kummerow’s game anymore.
>
> Hi Karl,
>
> I'm playing no games -- all I've been trying to do is press you to
> consistently the principal that semantics is uncancellable meaning can
> be maintained.
>
> I've suggested that this cannot be the case with "plod" in English that
> I hear. You misconstrue what I say and don't answer the question that if
> "plod" has semantics, what is it's so-called uncancellable meaning?
>
> Now, you dismissed it as non-standard use. But still the question
> remains: what is the semantics of "plod" in such a use? If this question
> cannot be answered, the theory of semantics as uncancellable meaning is
> called into question.
>
> Then I presented a couple of examples from two different languages (not
> dialects or "non-standard" use!) which you asked for (!) where it is
> extremely difficult to discern an uncancellable meaning across usages.
> And you simply step out of the discussion at that point. So again, if
> semantics as uncancellable meaning cannot be demonstrated in these
> examples, the theory of semantics as uncancellable meaning is called
> into question. That's what I've been maintaining all along. That was the
> main point of my review. Both you and Rolf simply dodge these issues. I
> can only see the same old thing that always happens on this list with
> members who have non-standard views: evidence which challenges their
> view is disregarded and ignored. What I take from that in this case is
> that the refusal to treat actual language evidence and provide treatment
> of it is that it actually cannot be done -- which is why it hasn't been
> done -- and so the theory of semantics as uncancellable meaning is in
> reality linguistically indefensible.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.