Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi,

at this point I am a little confused. Everybody has the right to use  
their own definition of terms for the purposes of their work. From  
your email I see that you see semantics and pragmatics as different  
entities but don't see any clear boundaries that separate the two.

James Christian

Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:

> Hi James,
>
> > Of course they are semantically different. They represent completely
> > different kinds of motion. But the question is whether they have any
> > semantic elements which are uncancellable.
>
> Sorry, but it was you that said their was little difference. I was just
> responding to what you said.
>
> > i.e.
> >
> > 1) Can an object only fall downwards?
> > 2) Can an object only sink downwards?
> > 3) Can a flying object only land on a solid object?
> >
> > Another example we could throw out for discussion:
> >
> > 4) He was crawling on his feet but not on his hands. This he learned, of
> > course, after toddling on hands and knees.
> >
> > James Christian
>
> James, I'm not sure what you're attempting to do with these examples. If
> you're trying to prove that the semantics of some lexemes or
> constructions involve semantics which are consistent across used, you
> have no disagreement with me. I already accept this. What I dispute is
> that this is principal inherent to semantic meaning, that semantics is
> to be understood as meaning which is uncancellable and any meaning which
> is cancellable (or not consistent across uses) is pragmatic. Rolf has
> not proven his point because he has not treated all the linguistic
> evidence which goes against his position.
>
> 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.