Hi Karl,
You wrote, "I’d always considered “function” to be a synonym for “action”, but if I read this rightly, I was mistaken. So if I were to redefine my understanding of “swing” in the context of a conductor in front of the orchestra, “function” is the leading of the orchestra, while “action” is the limited circular motion of the baton. Does this make sense to you? Does this fit linguistic theory? "If I read you rightly, that means that sometimes “function” and “action” are the same, sometimes widely different. So that when I look at definitions of words, I don’t look at “function”, rather at “action” either direct or metaphoric." I appreciate your trying, but you're still missing the linguistic difference between form and function. See Jonathan Mohler's post, which explains the distinction correctly. But let me just add this as well. Form is the individual lexeme. "Strike" is the form." Function refers to how the lexeme is being used in any one context. So in some contexts, "strike" functions to denote a meaning of "hit." In other contexts, "strike" functions to denote a meaning of "miss." In other contexts, "strike" denotes a meaning of "protest action of not going to work" or "protest action of not eating." So form and function refer to the form and function of the lexeme, not the form or function of the contexts. So, hopefully, you can see that lexicons are primarily focused on function, i.e. usage, and not form. Blessings, Jerry Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected]
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
