From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 29 1997 - 13:51:06 EST
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:31:27 -0500 Jonathan Robie
<jwrobie@mindspring.com> writes:
>At 12:41 PM 12/27/97 EST, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>
>>I was just comparing Luke's usage of NOMIZW in Luke and Acts.
According
>>to the way he uses NOMIZW it seems the meaning denotes erroneous
>>supposition or thinking, not just supposition or thinking.
>
>I've seen this methodology used several times before, e.g. in the
>AGAMOS thread, and I have some concerns. I think that it is a mistake to
give
>a word the attributes of the context in which it is found; to understand
the
>meaning of the word itself, you have to figure out what it contributes
to
>the context, not what the rest of the context contributes.
I don't think we're talking about an either/or, but a both/and situation.
Isn't the meaning of a word determined by both its usage elsewhere and
the immediate context?
>The fact that the word is used largely in contexts where erroneous
thinking
>is involved does NOT necessarily imply that the word itself denotes
>erroneous thinking.
Good point. Yet, if Luke always uses NOMIZW in the context of erroneous
thinking, then we might suspect or at least wonder if the use of the word
itself denotes erroneous thinking.
<snip>
>Perhaps some of our linguists can tell us how the pros determine the
>semantics of words?
Yes, that would be interesting.
Paul Dixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:42 EDT