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.