Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:17:59 +1000


Hi James,

Of course Rolf can define semantics for use in his work, sure. I just dispute that that definition corresponds to linguistic reality. I have substantiated my point with large amounts of evidence in my review -- none of which has been admitted or interacted with by Rolf. James, I am not arguing for any sort of uncancellable meaning being an intrinsic part to how semantics need be understood. Quite the contrary -- please read here again semantics being understood prototypically: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2009-June/038988.html.

Are you going to show me how wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 is imperfective?

Regards,
David Kummerow.


Hi David,

Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:


Hi James,

I think you may notice that you've changed lexemes, thus different
semantics involved.

No real big difference. All of my examples have verbs of motion with an adverbial phrase that contradicts the semantics of the verbs of motion. The only difference is that you used a single adverbial word whereas I used an adverbial phrase.

In this case, same meaning may be discerned across
different uses. I'm not disputing this type of thing at all. If you take
closer notice, this is entirely allowed for in the quote from my review.
It's the rigid definition of equating semantics to uncancellable meaning
is what I dispute and which has not been demonstrated yet on this list
despite this topic being raised again and again.

OK! So now we are getting into the semantics of 'semantics'. You are arguing that there is no uncancellable meaning of semantic units and to substantiate your case you argue for a different uncancellable meaning of 'semantics' than the definition of 'semantics' used in Rolf's review.

All of this aside I see no reason why Rolf should not define his usage of 'semantic' in his work. To the contrary, I see this as good academic practice. Especially, given that if he did not define his use of the term 'semantics' his usage would then be ambiguous and it would be possible to misread his work.

In my 2008 dissertation on Interlingual machine translation I had to do a similar thing as my use of the term 'Interlingua' was different from past usage of the term in the literature. Yet if I used another term as I have in the past (concept text) I run the risk of seeming ignorant of the literature for not using the term 'Interlingua'. In such cases, the only way to satisfy all critics is to provide a definition of your usage of the term in question.

James Christian


Regards,
David Kummerow.


Hi David,

1) Newton watched as the apple fell upwards.
2) The Mary Rose sank from the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the
water.
3) The space shuttle landed in the sky about 3,000 feet above London.

No doubt the above sentences make complete sense to you with no comic
value.

James Christian





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page