RE: On Method and S -> PN and Ontological Meaning

Clayton Bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:44:55 +0000

Edgar Wrote:
>>>>>>
So here is where my question comes in. Is it fair to infer any
generalizations about usage? You did not address that question.
Isn't your so-called ontological meaning your term for what is
simply syntactical inference by earlier grammarians?
>>>>>>>>>

The term *Ontological Meaning* is in fact borrowed from the
grammar which started the discussion. I do not like the term so
let's not use it. I think we should stick with the term *basic
meaning* because it does not sound so philosophical.

The answer to Edgar's question is yes. The *basic meaning* is a
generalization about usage of a grammatical form. But it is more
than a generalization when it is discussed by some grammarians.
Some grammarians argue as if *basic meaning* was a part of the
semantic system of the language.

To address this question we need some graphics. If you were to
draw a diagram of the semantic network representing all the
grammatical forms in K. Greek. And if this diagram showed the
relationship between each grammatical form and it's different
meanings in different contexts in Greek texts. (Lets assume we
have drawn such a diagram.) Now the question I am raising is this:
Should the *basic meaning* of a grammatical form appear
anywhere in this diagram?

My answer is *no.* Because I don't think that a *generalized*
genitive case exists as a component in the semantic system of K.
Greek. It is one thing to make generalizations about phenomena
when analyzing and it is quite another thing to say that these
generalizations are actually a functioning component in the
phenomena under discussion.

If the veteran language teachers think that the *basic meaning* of
a grammatical form is a useful concept for teaching then by all
means use it. But you may be teaching by inference the concept
that *basic meaning* of a grammatical form is actually a part of
the language under discussion. And it is this notion that I think
needs to be examined closely.

This is the core issue.

Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point

Postscript:

Edgar raised several other issues about my post, style of
argumentation, references to authors who have discussed
semantics (lexical). Others have object to my harsh tone. I will
clear up all these issues at once by simply agreeing with all of
them. Yes I have used sloppy arguments and yes I have sounded
rather nasty.