Jonathan: On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Jonathan Mohler <[email protected]>wrote:
> Karl, > > You wrote: > > Jerry: > > … > 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. > That is Ruth’s point too. I had long considered “function” and “action” to be synonyms, but apparently that’s not true. > 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. > This discussion has gotten so theoretical that you are right that we risk losing sight of the nuts and bolts of how to read the text, and also how to recognize meaning. You are right that each form is a container for meaning. But we need to remember that each container can hold only a limited set of meaning, often, as in verbal conjugation, defined by the form of the container. But lexical meaning (of the sort listed in dictionaries) is not dependent on the form of the container, rather it seems to be independent thereof, as in arbitrarily assigned. It’s recognized through usage. When a word is used in one context, no matter how many times used in that context, it’s easy to recognize what the word means. When a word is used in different contexts, that’s where questioning comes up. From my experience in learning modern languages, I found that almost always a commonality of meaning could be discerned in all contexts, a commonality defined by action (homonyms excluded). For years I’d called that action “function”, but Ruth informed me that that’s incorrect application of the term in linguistics. So it’s probably better just to call it “action”. If a word is used in many contexts, and has a commonality of action across all of them except one, no matter how many times it is used in that one unique context, that is still only one context and its unique use in that one context make it idiosyncratic when compared against all the other contexts where it’s used. Having seen that in modern languages, it’s only natural to apply it to Biblical Hebrew as well. Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
