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

partly morphemes


warning to b-greekers who have an aversion to my verbiage, and who think the
tons of verbiage on aspect more appropriate for b-greek. some of you may want
to look at only the next line, if that, and use the delete key. (love alice's
molecules.)

i asked bethany dumas on anglican, who's been talking about morphemes, if
accents or breathings in written greek could be seen as morphemes, since, e.g.
<<a breathing differentiates the import, as between wpa = either ora or hora;
xeipwv = either worse guy with acute on penult or of hands with circumflex on
ultima>> and she responds <<Linguistic units are units of spoken language,
which is primary (i.e., FIRST) in all known human cultures. They are not units
of orthography. Therefore, to ask whether an "accent" is a morpheme is to miss
the point.>> would any of you b-greekers like to comment? looks to me as if her
rejoinder smacks of a hasty put down, inasmuch as the accent definitely was and
is spoken, first as musical pitch and then evolving into stress, so that her
term orthography may not strictly apply here, for it's not a question like
whether a tau or a theta is used, but makes the decisive choice between two
different spoken words. no, dumas, i don't want to rephrase the question. i
want to scrap the snoot off your reply, because i don't think you even
appreciate what npocwdia = prosodia > accentus really refers to.

even though a greek can clearly hear a difference, it does not apply to speech?
what am i hearing? but to change the subject:

a morpheme made up of two words? why not many more, like mahershalalhashbaz?

it occurred to me, a while ago, as i was brewing some coffee, as i often do, to
gratify sue --

two four letter words occurred to me, because the wee hours news had repeated
some puerile points about the locus and its problems, & only illustrated once
more that history is lies agreed upon,

it occurred to me how much conveying meaning depends upon who the recipients
are,

how much setting of every kind -- cultural, societal, informational,
preparational (i hate the witless repetition of 'political, social, economic'
by a seemingly innumerable multitude of pseudo-pundits who like to assure
themselves that they can say the three words) -- influences what message or
potential messages will be understood,

to one set of humans the two words in question could now immediately signify
the dominance and stupidity of pseudolibralism, to another the integrity of
keeping one's word (even though the contract of lease could hardly have
envisioned the metamorphosis of the contracting party), to another the
astounding power of certain monetary, financial and economic principles ... (&
other sets could surely be specified)

and this entire illustration might be completely vitiated, if one happens to
know the etymology of the two four letter words,

and it therefore illustrates a point that almost every christian speaker i've
ever heard who pops off about hebrew and greek (especially on the basis of the
endless tomes of word study trash available -- even my beloved c. s. lewis
parroted the baloney about aganh = agape), needs to consider, namely, how any
linguistic pool uses thousands of words completely apart from any concept of
their etymology,

so the question for dumas on anglican list is, is this a morpheme?

the two four letter words are: hong kong.

the etymology seems to be 'fragrant harbor'. note well, ye pseudolinguists, how
few american minds, who get info daily now about hong kong, ever think anything
remotely resembling 'fragrant harbor'. how many times my spirit has squirmed in
anguish while some pundit up front pops off about 'cheerful giver' equals
'hilarious' or 'deacon' equals 'kicking up dust'. i call these ipecac sermons
(< port. ipecacuanha) for the cleansing effect they have on those who read too
much. they bring pointedly home the apophthegm of that ancient cynic who said
he was sorry he learnt to read, because it had corrupted his mind.

what indication would hong alone give? maybe honker would be close. kong might
evoke some gorilla, albeit ill spelt.

about the conference on politics, rhetoric, &c. plugged by one Mikel Labiano
Ilundain, i can discharge any part i'd now want in it with one sentence: one of
the most perennial, population fooling, relentlessly and continually utilized
devices will have been to disguise radical change as the restoration of an
ancient status quo: witness the augustan 'restoration of the republic' or uncle
cornpone's (lbj's) 'helping the poor is in the best of amurican traditions' or
pecusa's revisions of the prayer book. let somebody else who sees potential
here and wants a reputation fly to salamanca.

i can't recall but a handful of 'eminent specialists' i ever enjoyed being with
-- most of them deemed odious for their socratic irony and envied for having
some genuine skills, e.g. talbot selby of u. richmond, who could speak latin or
italian about equally -- much sharper on latin grammar than a. t. robertson on
greek grammar, despite the prolixity of the latter's publications.

composed on the fly, not bly, by one who says

shalom,

but not without a p.s. that one of my term papers once informed me that the
romans "carried their faeces to the ends of the earth". macte!

shalom,
bearded bill of asheville <bthurman@unca.edu>
unca not having approved either whom or thereof.

another p.s. i guess an implicit question will have been whether morpheme in
its 'correct' usage should take into account possible error like kong = cong.
i guess, as many use it it does, & therefore kong is a morpheme.
also, dumas, i meant scrape, not scrap, supra.
Follow-Ups: