Hi Karl,
I think I had best bow out of our discussion. Your use of terms like "form," "function," is just too idiosyncratic to your own internal system of definitions for us to be able to meaningfully communicate, and they simply don't correspond to what linguists and lexicographers are attempting to do. And I think your understanding of what is meant by semantic domain, and what lexicographers are trying to do by working with the same, is just too far off the mark for us to continue the discussion. But I'll try to give one last example. Two friends are at a baseball game. I'll call them Bill and Tom. But Bill is just learning about the game of baseball. Bill: "I was distracted there for a second. What happened on that last pitch? Tom: "It was a strike. Bill: "You MEAN he struck the ball?" Tom: "No, I MEAN he missed the ball. He swung and missed. Bill: "But I though 'strike' MEANS to hit something." Tom: "It does, but in this instance, 'strike' has come to MEAN swinging and missing. Bill: "Oh, Ok, I see what you MEAN." MEANING is tied to word usage – not to some underlying original concept. That's just the way language works. Blessings, Jerry Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected]
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
