Karl: I like the word action. I do see some validity to what you are trying to express. Upon reflection, the "strike out" example offers some insights. When someone uses the expression outside of baseball, his "use" leaves a "trace" from the point of origin. Much like the trace we represent in language structure trees. The reason the expression works is that in the mind of the speaker the baseball analogy holds true. This to me is a "synchronic" observation. The speaker assumes the listener shares the impact of the baseball analogy.
Now, if at some point in the future, we stop playing baseball in the U.S., then the expression "strike out" will have a "diachronic" trace. At that point native speakers who use the expression will not be aware that it is a baseball term. It will be a full-blown idiom by then like "flash in the pan," or "living high on the hog," expressions whose origin contemporary users are ignorant. Jonathan E Mohler Baptist Bible Graduate School On May 11, 2013, at 9:04 PM, K Randolph wrote: > 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
