From: Moon-Ryul Jung (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 07 2001 - 02:12:03 EST
I have two comments on your questions.
1) In EK TWN KATW and EK TWN ANW, is the adverbial nature of KATW and
ANW really canceled? To me, EK TWN KATW can be translated as
"from the place or sphere that is below". At least, it seems that
locational adverbials can take the article without losing
its adverbial nature.
2) You seem to refer to the position that only those features not
are semantic features. I think this position is unrealistic because it is
very hard to identify features that cannot be canceled. Rather I would
prefer "default" or "prototypical" semantics, where the meaning of a
phrase or a sentence is determined with respect to the default or typical
Without any specific indication, the hearer would assume the default or
typical context to interpret given utterances. Although defining the
context is not so easy, it seems easier to identify uncancelable features.
for Greek does not seem to feel the necessity> This question is designed
to help me understand the linguistic
> employment of "cancelability" in determining [a lexeme's] semantics.
> What made me think of this was Kimmo's "I ran" (past tense in English) and
> "IF I ran" (where its pastness is cancelled).
> In John 8:23 we have:
> hUMEIS EK TWN KATW ESTE EGW EK TWN ANW EIMI
> Here KATW and ANW, both adverbs, have their adverbial natures
> cancelled by the articles. Does this mean that the adverbial natures
> of KATW and ANW are not part of their SEMANTICS, since they can be
> Which is also to ask: is cancelability ALONE the litmus test for semantics?
> Mark Wilson
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:52 EDT