Karl, You wrote: > 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?
We should define these terms clearly at this point. It is difficult to follow the discussion sometimes because of lack of clarity. For my part, I know that in BH we look at the form, then at its function. So we often come across a Perfect (form) and find that its function is past perfect, or instantaneous present, etc.... Or an imperfect form that functions as a jussive. In these cases discourse grammar has more to do with the meaning of the lexeme than does its form. At this level this use of the terms form and function is in line with linguistics. > > 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. This is simply not the case. At first it may have been idiosyncratic, but the expression "to strike out" can be used outside of baseball. It's quite common to export the expression to a context which has nothing to do with baseball. Men are notorious for expressing themselves through sports terminology. When they do that they are borrowing from the technical jargon, using it to express how they feel; as such, they are ascribing new meaning to the words. A man might be expressing how he tried to get a girl to go out with him, and having been denied, says "I struck out." A non-native speaker will pick up on the expression, and use it appropriately, yet while never really appreciating the etymology. > 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. As above, all these can be exported to non-baseball contexts: "He hit a home run with that one" (successful business deal). And other sports: "he's out for the count" (he died, or he failed, lost); > > 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] > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
