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: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:44:11 +0100


Hi,

as far as I understand Rolf's work he claims that both tense and aspect are cancellable. That was the whole point of his providing refined definitions of imperfect and perfect aspects.

James Christian


Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:


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

_______________________________________________
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.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page