The second in my series of blog posts comparing Liddell, Scott, Jones, & Mckenzie’s Greek-English Lexicon with Brill’s […]
My audience didn’t do a particularly good job participating in the beginning quiz. Next time I’ll need to find some additional incentives.
A few months ago, I was asked to write a blog post about The Brill Dictionary of Ancient […]
In preparing for the SEBTS conference, Linguistics and New Testament Greek: Key Issues in the Current Debate, I […]
A few weeks ago I put a poll up on Twitter and another one on Facebook, asking whether people thought that a particular verb had the perfect as part of its inflectional paradigm.
Can you imagine how much more complicated it could have been for Elmer Fudd to figure out if its rabbit season or duck season?
This is the entirety of my series of discussion of Charles Ruhl’s (1989) monograph On monosemy.
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?