Continuing on with my summary of the papers presented at SEBTS’s Linguistics and New Testament Greek Conference, April […]
Andrew Keenan continues his investigations… In this section, I want to cover some of the broadest components of […]
Can you imagine how much more complicated it could have been for Elmer Fudd to figure out if its rabbit season or duck season?
There are bits to be salvaged from Ruhl (1989), perhaps, but it might be easier to start elsewhere entirely.
I fully acknowledge there is certainly an appeal for monosemy as a theoretical construct. The ability to schematize all usages or senses within a single abstract sense does indeed simplified and elegant semantic theory. Such a theory is an attractive prospect for all linguists.
Generative grammar has moved on from its old theories about syntax. Can we please do the same with their semantic theories, too?
We’re getting over the peak and headed toward the end. The practical take away is coming.
Semantic theory: it’ll get harder before it gets hardest.
Meaning is hard. Unfortunately, I’m not going to make any easier here.
Compounds are complicated. They are formally complex, involving wide variation in their morphological/lexical formation. These formal complexities introduce their own series of semantic challenges.