Jerry: If you bow out, I won’t hold it against you.
However, in what way is my usage idiosyncratic? On Thursday, May 9, 2013, Jerry Shepherd wrote: > 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. > > Sorry, but I don’t understand your objection. Is it perhaps that formal linguistics uses these terms in idiosyncratic manners that are not obvious to those who merely work with language? In the following example, you leave out some very important information. > 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." > > What you leave out in this example is the recognition that “strike” in baseball is idiosyncratic for baseball, in other words a special usage that fits only baseball. Let’s add another complicating layer to this example, namely that Bill is learning English as a second language and Tom is his English teacher. In order for Bill to understand this use in baseball, Tom would have to tell him that this use in baseball is idiosyncratic and not to be used outside of baseball. He would also have to give many more details. If he fails to do this, poor Bill will be confused and misuse the term in contexts outside of baseball. Baseball also uses other terms in idiosyncratic ways, among which are “run”, “hit”, “ball”, “out” and since I’m not an expert on baseball, I don’t know where else. > > > MEANING is tied to word usage – not to some underlying original concept. > That's > just the way language works. > > Where do I deny usage in my discussions, both here and previously? > > > Blessings, > > > > Jerry > > Jerry Shepherd > Taylor Seminary > Edmonton, Alberta > [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');> > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
