From: c stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 24 2001 - 14:31:40 EDT
on 5/24/01 6:47 AM, Randall Buth wrote:
> SUGKOMIDH` (//=n.t. QERISMO`S) MH'LWN
> 'apples' simply specifies the kind of crop:
> An apple crop, not a pomegranate crop
> (ROW~N, [sing.TH~S RO'AS],
> SUGKOMIDH` MH'LWN
> does not equal
> SUGKOMIDH` hROW~N).
Randall is right of course. MHLWN being in the genitive case limits
SUGKOMIDH. The fact that it "specifies" (a particular sub classification of
limiting) is information provided by the lexical semantics of the two words
not by the case form itself.
Doubtless someone will say something like "the genitive case is the
preeminent case of specification in all languages where it exists." I will
admit this, that we find the genitive case commonly used where
specification is taking place. However if we are talking about the meaning
of the case form and trying to distinguish between the semantic contribution
the case form supplies to its context and what the lexical stock supplies to
the same context, then I would still say that notion of specification in
this simple example is supplied by the lexical semantics of SUGKOMIDH`
MH'LWN, not by the case form of MH'LWN.
> The genitive of TO MH~LON does not suggest any of the long
> quotation above.
> Please apply some common sense:
> would you want people interpreting English like the above quote?
> Such extrapolations violate every principle of human
> communication that I know and in every language that I know.
I agree with Randall.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
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 - 15:36:57 EDT