Nir: On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <[email protected]>wrote:
> karl, > > i recommend you to read wittgenstein. It’s been a long time since I last read western philosophy. I view it as garbage-in, massaged by a faulty algorithm, then garbage-out. It’s a dead end. > he once dedicated a whole book (quite > meager, though, and i was using the bilingual edition...) to the meaning of > just one word: a chair. a word is not just a concept: a word is also a > class > object, and people organize classes in different ways. for example, if you > define a chair as functional (a place to sit on), visual (four legs etc) or > status (to occupy a chair in acommittee) you get three distinct classes > with > some intersection. see 2Kgs 15:12 where KS) is none of the above. > That’s a problem with thinking formally, in that many different forms can do for a function. From your description of the book, while Wittgenstein acknowledged that there is a function to a chair, he subsumed it within a formal concept so that he apparently didn’t see the whole advantage of functional analysis. > > also, KS) is different than KS and MW$B? are they mere synonyms? all these > question need finer answers than just "chair". > KS is a happax legomenon, in an apparently corrupted section of text. Is there a DSS example of this text? This is found in Exodus 17:16. MW$B is a place to settle down. It’s used for settlement, as in a group of houses. Also used for where an individual can settle his body down, as in a couch or seat. It’s from a root meaning “to settle down”. KS) apparently refers to a place of honor, where honor is as important as the idea of being a place to sit. Come to think of it, I don’t remember a term in Biblical Hebrew that is equivalent to the modern word for “chair”. > > also, take Isa 31:8-9 and try to translate NPL, XRB, T)KLNW, SL(, PNY, )WR, > MS, TNWR. none of them is what your one-word dictionary would say they > are. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have no problem reading that passage according to the definitions I wrote in my dictionary. > > things get worse when you try to encapsulate not just a word, lexeme etc, > but > a whole root into a single word which will stand for all the words derived > from it. > This sentence makes no sense. Are you talking about translation? By now you should know me well enough that you know I reject the etymological fallacy. Did your mind run ahead of your fingers, so that you wrote something that you didn’t intend, as I sometimes do? > > nir cohen > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
