Hi Karl, I won't interfere with the discussion between you and Barry; I'll let Barry take up the mantle for a while of trying to show the problems withy "one unique meaning" lexeme theory, a task which, thankfully, is not all that difficult. But I do have one question for you. What is your evidence that "strike" in baseball, meaning "to miss," comes from a different "root" than "strike", meaning to "hit"? I think you mentioned that before, and I thought that sounded very odd. So, I'm skeptical.
Blessings, Jerry Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected] On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:13 PM, K Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: > Barry: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Barry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 7/10/2013 8:05 AM, K Randolph wrote: >> > First, I noticed that some words were used in ways that indicated that >> > their meanings as given in dictionaries didn’t seem accurate. It was >> > more often a nuance than a full meaning, but sometimes the latter as >> > well. Part of that is also how I understand words are used which is >> > different from how some other lexicographers understand how words are >> > used. My understanding is based on action and the range where that >> > action can be applied, theirs more often on form and affect. >> >> Karl, this experience is shared by all who proceed beyond the >> beginning/intermediate levels of any language study. Lexicons and >> dictionaries are not exhaustive – that's simply impossible. They are, so >> to speak, the beginning of semantic wisdom. What you are describing is >> called in linguistics the pragmatics of the word, how the word is >> actually used in context. Here is a pretty good introductory lecture on >> the subject: >> >> http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_1998/ling001/meaning.html >> >> My comments here are restricted to pragmatic or semantic extension, not >> to the other aspects of linguistic pragmatics. >> > > Let’s go back to the example I gave of “to swing” which is limited motion > around an arc. When a conductor swings his baton, he leads the orchestra. > When a baseball player swings his bat, he attempts to hit a speeding ball > (if he misses, he then has a count against him, which is called a “strike”, > from a different root than “strike” to hit). When a man swings his partner > to music, that is dancing. When a child swings on a chair suspended from an > overhead gantry, that is playing. But they all have the same action, namely > limited movement along an arc. How a translator would translate the word > into another language and culture may be different with each context when > the target language doesn’t have the concept of “swing”. But the translator > would be best able to choose the closest words in the target language if he > understands the action behind the word in English. > > I’m expanding my dictionary beyond mere glosses to showing how and where > they are used. As we discussed in earlier discussions, meaning is > discovered not only in the actions referred to by the verb, but also the > contexts where that action takes place. Some actions can take place in > greater number of contexts than other words. > >> >> As an example of the pragmatic use of a word in English, let's say I'm >> writing a science fiction story in which I regularly use the word "car" >> to mean "flying car." Car doesn't normally mean that in English, but >> anybody reading my book would understand how its being used. At times >> what begins initially as a pragmatic extension of the meaning becomes a >> standard meaning in a particular context, such as "phone" to mean "cell >> phone" or "scan" to make digital copies of documents or pictures. >> >> … >> >> The difficulty for us as modern readers of ancient languages is this, do >> we use an different word other than the standard lexical glosses to >> render the usage in context, or do we use such a standard gloss and hope >> the context shows the pragmatic extension in English? I don't have a >> clue, really, but I think it has to be decided on a case by case basis. >> > > Now when I read Tanakh, I almost never translate, so that’s not an issue > with my normal reading. However, when translating, I often don’t take the > exact meaning—sometimes because it makes for awkward readings, sometimes > not understandable. For example, הוצאתי HWC)TY literally means “I cause to > exit” which is commonly “translated” as “I brought …” The reason for the > difference is because English doesn’t have a one-to-one correspondence to > Hebrew. And we need to decide on a case by case basis to decide on how is > best to translate a passage. > > I think the translator does best when he recognizes what is the action > indicated by the lexeme, so he’s best able to choose whether or not to > follow a gloss. > >> >> All this to say that your lexicons weren't lying to you. The best >> lexicons provide definitions which act as guides to the usage of the >> word, descriptive rather than prescriptive. >> > > Lying is telling falsehoods with the intent to deceive. Far be it from me > to claim so apart from evidence (which I don’t have). What I think is far > more likely is that other lexicographers used a lexicographic method that > my experience indicates gives a substandard to misleading and incorrect > result, in this case gloss. > >> >> > >> > I was taught two different patterns of verbal use: one where the >> > different conjugations referred to tense, which was the main >> > understanding at the time of Gesenius and Davidson, hence their use of >> > “ preterite” and “perfect” and “future”; secondly that they referred to >> > aspect; neither turn out to be accurate. >> > >> > There is a pattern of usage for the conjugations, but that pattern >> > doesn’t fit tense, aspect nor mood. >> >> As recent discussion on this list proves, the Hebrew verbal system is a >> matter of some controversy as our understanding of it evolves... >> > > How much of that controversy is driven by pride? After all, the scholar > who staked his reputation on the claim that present referent, declarative, > continuous action speech is rendered by a sentence structure of subject, > verb in participle, object optional depending on verb will not take too > kindly to the person who points out that the real pattern is subject, verb > in Qatal, and optional object depending on verb. > > How many other positions are similar to that? > >> >> -- >> N.E. Barry Hofstetter >> Semper melius Latine sonat >> http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog >> >> All opinions in this email are my own, and >> reflect no institution with which I may be >> associated >> > > Karl W. Randolph. > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
