From: Clayton Bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Jul 29 1997 - 15:44:55 EDT
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:24 EDT