On 17/11/2005 23:38, Karl Randolph wrote:
Peter:
The "core meaning" (which I think you introduced in this
discussion) ...
I borrowed the term "core meaning" from Rolf because this was something
we could agree on against you. But to me and I think to Rolf, the "core
meaning" is does not necessarily correspond to the meaning of each
individual occurrence. So finding some examples of non-eternal `olam (if
there are any) would not demonstrate that the "core meaning" is not
eternity.
... goes back to our discussions on whether or
not lexemes have basically one meaning or many. As for
me, I still maintain that lexemes have one basic meaning
for each time period, but that they can change over time.
Also we need to keep in mind complex lexemes (where
two or more lexemes used consistently together can have
its own meaning separate from each component lexeme)
and idiomatic phrases.
That one meaning may have a broad semantic use, or
narrow one, or may even be a total subset of another one,
but that doesn't change the basic pattern.
This is the way people use language.
No it isn't, Karl. There are many English words which do not have a
basic meaning in this sense. Think of "get" or "run", which by no means
always mean anything like the possible "core meanings" "obtain" and
"move fast with one's legs" respectively.
Translators often find that the semantic range of one
lexeme in an originating language may overlap two or
more semantic ranges in a receiving language, hence an
accurate translation can use two or more lexemes to
render the meaning of the originating language. But that's
a problem of translation, not language use.
I agree with you here, but it isn't a problem for me but a normal matter
of translation. The only problem is that Rolf and others like him do not
recognise that this is a problem.
snip
--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
_______________________________________________
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.