Hi Karl,
If Ruth and I were doing a song and dance, it was only because we were following your magic show and sleight of hand in the way which you dismissed Dave Washburn's example of "strike" so cavalierly. Yes, you did admit that it was an exception, but you still argued that it was merely an exception that proves the rule. But it is a very important exception, because it shows that a word, which even in a baseball context probably at one time meant to "hit," came to actually mean "miss." And your suggestion that only "0.1 percent of total vocabulary" constitues the number of exceptions seems to me be an incredibly low estimate. Indeed, the very phenomenon that a language can have literally thousand and thousands of puns belies this suggestion. Furthermore, it is the most common words in a language that can have the widest range of meanings, and are prime candidates for having completely opposite meanings. Indeed, notice how the examples Ruth used were very common words: draw, strike, class. You simply argue for way too much when you argue that lexemes "generally have one meaning at any one point in time." This can only be argued by a rather severe distortion of the word "meaning." Even in your reply you used a word that demonstrates the tenuousness of your thesis. That was the word "word." Your use of the word "word" was very different than the usage in the common phrase, "I'd like to have word with you." As opposed to a single word, the last usage refers to an entire conversation. The "Word of God" refers not to a single word, but to an entire collection of books. In "he preached the word." "word" refers to a sermon. Are these usages related? Most certainly. Do they have the same meaning? Not at all. And none of these meanings are unique, as easily demonstrated by the fact that other words in the language can be subsituted for them and the same meaning can still be derived. So, I simply can't see how your thesis that words generally have only one meaning and are also unique at any one point in time either corresponds to reality or has any real value in linguistic discussion. This is true for English, and it's also true for Biblical Hebrew (note the very wide range of meanings for the commonest Hebrew words). Blessings, Jerry Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected] On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:15 AM, K Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry and Ruth: > > We have been through this song and dance before, and it’s a song and dance > because it’s exactly the same—a statement taken out of context and then > being argued against. > > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Jerry Shepherd <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Ruth, >> >> Thank your very much for this. You are absolutely correct. Would you >> care to comment on the other part of that repeated formulation, that each >> lexeme has a single "unique" meaning? That seems to me to be nonsense as >> well. Or it at least needs to be explained as to the level of uniqueness. >> > > When one looks at the actions referred to by a lexeme, other than homonyms > where two or more words from different roots have converged in form, words > generally have one meaning at any one point in time. The semantic range of > meaning can range from wide, applicable to many contexts, to narrow. > > Te context referred to above is that exceptions were allowed for, thereby > mooting your objection. But what is the number of such exceptions? 0.1% of > total vocabulary? > > In Biblical Hebrew we talk about homographs rather than homonyms, because > we have no evidence that they were pronounced the same. The lack of vowels > leaves us guessing as to their pronunciations. > >> >> This was a valuable contribution. Don't fall back into lurking mode! >> >> Blessings, >> >> Jerry Shepherd >> Taylor Seminary >> Edmonton, Alberta >> > > > Karl W. Randolph. >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
