[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

re: What is the meaning of a Case?

This morning I was rereading Porter's treatment of the case system 
(pages 80-82, Stanely E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 
Sheffield, second edition, 1995.). He talks about the meaning of a case 
form and explains how it relates to syntax and context.

I have some problems with this analysis. First and foremost I have a 
problem with the notion of a *case form* having meaning. The semantics 
of cases is not in my mind a special problem. Word inflections in 
general have the same sort of relationship to semantics across the 
language system. Case forms can be treated like verb forms or what ever.

In my thinking the inflection of a word does not bear meaning. The 
inflection is a key into a domain (paradigm) of possible meanings. Until 
the inflected form appears in a context, it is an uninstantiated 
variable, and it receives it's instantiation from contextual 
information. Outside of the the context the inflected form is only a key 
and is semantically empty. 

In this way inflected forms behave much like lexical forms. A lexical 
form has no meaning without a context. The lexical form is a key into a 
domain (paradigm) of possible meanings. Until the lexical form appears 
in a context, it is an uninstantiated variable, and it receives it's 
instantiation from contextual information. Outside of the the context 
the lexical form is only a key and is semantically empty. 

These notions are commonplace in discussions of lexical semantics but I 
rarely see them spelled out in grammars? Why not? 

Now, I suspect that some of you will find fault with my analysis. If so, 
tell me. I'm listening. 


Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
Follow-Ups: