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.
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.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
On 5/6/2013 5:20 PM, K Randolph wrote:
Jerry:
What I react against is the notion that as a general rule, words from
the same background can have multiple meanings, often unrelated to
each other. While that can be true on a longitudinal study where words
change meaning, that is rare at any one point in time.
Further, I distinguish between words from the same etymology, and
those from different etymologies that have become homonyms. (In
Biblical Hebrew, I would not be surprised if, of the Biblical Hebrew
homographs, most had different pronunciations.)
If this is rare in modern languages, why should Biblical Hebrew be
treated differently? I object to the cavalier attitude that because a
few words in modern languages may have varying meanings, therefore we
willy nilly can give Biblical Hebrew words whatever meanings we want
to fit our readings of Tanakh. That is sloppy lexicography at best,
and if carried to its logical conclusion, makes any and all terms
undefined.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Jerry Shepherd <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Karl,
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.
I can't speak for your experience, but mine is that the majority of
puns deal not only with words from different etymologies, but their
pronunciations also differ. The pronunciations are close, so the
connection can be made, but in the majority of the puns, the
pronunciations differ. So I don't see puns as evidence for your claims.
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.
Yet if you look at the actions behind the words, all three of your
examples, you find a commonality of action. Even in "strike", where
it's used in a seemingly opposite manner, is used in a highly
specialized manner still referring back to the common action.
Therefore, how does the use of these examples justify giving meanings
to Biblical Hebrew terms that have no relationship to each other, no
commonality of action?
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.
Are you trying to say that because words can be use idiomatically,
therefore Biblical Hebrew terms are in practice undefined and
undefinable? That we can assign whatever meaning that we want to make
any particular passage give the reading that we want it to have? I
appears to me that this is what you are trying to argue for.
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.
Since when does the fact that each word has a unique meaning preclude
it from having synonyms? "to see", "to stare", "to look" etc. all can
be substituted for each other, but each has a unique shading that
makes one a better fit for a certain context than another. And haven't
you noticed that some terms can be used in a greater range of contexts
than other?
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).
This is why I go back to the action symbolized by a term, rather than
to how it appears in form of each use. Haven't you noticed this?
Function over form. This is why I disagree with defining according to
semantic fields. That's how I learn modern languages, as well as
ancient ones.
Blessings,
Jerry
Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
