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?
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.
Following up on my post with Greek language papers at SBL, here’s a similarly compiled list for ETS. Some of these are from different sessions and actually lover lap with each other, so you’ll need to plan accordingly if you’re interested.
Pro-tips for surviving without alcohol in a barren land from Cyrus the Great.
Herein, we come to the end of our discussion of the semantics of σκύβαλον and how it relates to English taboo words.
Wherein σκύβαλον becomes a much larger problem in cities compared to out on the farm.
This piece picks up from Obscenity in Paul? The Question of σκύβαλον, examining how the word σκύβαλον is used […]
Is there profanity in Paul? It’s sort of an old question. There’s a certain appeal to the idea for some perhaps and the fact that σκύβαλον can be glossed ‘dung’ or ‘manure’ likely encourages the possibility to extend its English rendering a little further.