Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Lexemes and meanings

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: Michael Abernathy <mabernathy AT conwaycorp.net>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Lexemes and meanings
  • Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 17:23:57 -0700

Michael:

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Michael Abernathy <mabernathy AT conwaycorp.net> wrote:
Karl,
Back in prehistorical times, when I was in seminary, our linguistics professor  took it as a given that words have multiple meanings.  Not just in English but in human language in general.
To bring home the point our professor pointed to the word "dog."  Look it up.  There are 10 definitions found in the Miriam Webster Dictionary.  And it is not rare for an English word to have multiple meanings.  It is more common than not.  Just as an experiment I looked up the names of several objects in the room I'm in.

So I looked it up, and I find only two definitions and even the second definition has connections to the first. This the difference between defining according to function rather than form. The constellation is named after the animal. The idiomatic uses are connected with the animal. “Hot dog” is a compound lexeme that has a different meaning than either word separately. And so forth.

So when I look at function, action, I see one meaning applied to several contexts: when others look at form, semantic fields, they see many definitions.

I find it easier to learn foreign languages when learning the action or function behind a word, then learning the contexts where it may be applied. I find it also easier to remember idiomatic uses. That’s how I use my mother tongue, English. And every foreign language I’ve studied act the same way.
 
I found 9 definitions for book, 6 for table, 8 for horse (a figurine not a real horse), and 5 for dragon (another figurine just in case you think my house is really strange).  Many of those definitions were developed from the original use but they are nevertheless clearly distinct.  I doubt you'll find a language where multiple meanings did not eventually develop for many of the words.

How can I make it more clear, that I use a different methodology than Gesenius, BDB, HALOT and others, a methodology that looks at action and function where they look at form? And when looking at action, I see a unity of action where they see differences of form?

This is the reason I wrote my dictionary.
 
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

Karl W. Randolph. 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page