[b-greek] Re: Scientific theory of aspect - To Rolf

From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Tue Jan 09 2001 - 18:06:02 EST


Daniel Riaņo Rufilanchas wrote:


>Rolf Furuli wrote (one millennium ago):
>
>> >In lexical semantics and word studies we distinguish between 'word',
>> >'concept', and 'reference'. The 'word' is just a semantic signal which has
>> >no meaning in itself, the 'concept' is the 'entry' in the mental lexicon
>>>signalled by the word, i.e. the total range of meaning that a particular
>>>word can signal, which is stored in our mind. The 'reference' is the thing
>> >in the world denoted by the word.
>
>
> Sorry for coming so late to this very interesting thread, and
>with empty hands. Given the delay, I won't ask the authors to come
>back to the same issues, but I'll beg for a clarification. I am not
>sure how widespread is, in lexical semantics, the view that "'word'
>is just a semantic signal which has no meaning in itself", but since
>"semantic" claims for a 'meaning', and every sign has at least some
>meaning within a system, I'd like to ask: what kind of meaning has a
>word, in your view?
>--

Dear Daniel,

My views on this question do not represent the main stream, although they
are based on Saussure's differenciation between "langue" and "parole".
The term "word" can be difficult to define, but to try to restrict the
matter, I will here use "word" about substantives (either expressed by
letters or by sounds). In the 19th and first part of the 20th century it
was believed that each word had a common, original meaning which existed in
all uses of the same word. This is rightly called THE ETYMOLOGICAL FALLACY.
Few if any persons believe this today, but in my view, the pendulum has
svung too far, and *many* workers today believe in what I term THE
CONTEXTUAL FALLACY. They believe that a word does not have a meaning
without a context, only a potential for meaning. But the context does not
produce new meaning!

I would say that meaning is neither found in the individual word nor in the
context, but meaning is connected with concepts in the minds of living
people. This meaning can be communicated because a group of people has the
same presupposition pool and the same linguistic conventions. So the
letters and sounds have no intrinsic meaning, they are just codes, and the
context (written or spoken) neither produces meaning, it just has the role
of a pointing finger. But the meaning is connected with the concepts in the
minds which are signalled by the words. Many substantives signals just one
concept, others signal two, and a few more than two concepts.

This very short sketch is a part of my theory of literal Bible translation,
which leads to translations where more Greek and Hebrew words are given a
uniform translation than is usual. I will use an example which even is
rendered uniformely in idiomatic translations, namely KOSMOS.

When a person hears or sees KOSMOS (the semantic signal), the same concept
is activated in the mind of the receiver as in the mind of the sender,
because they have the same presupposition pool. Each concept has a
relativly clear core but becomes fuzzy towards the edges, so the question
is which side of the concept the sender wants to make visible. The tool
which the sender has at his or her disposition is the context, and
therefore it functions as a pointing finger. It has no meaning in itself,
but it makes visible a part of the meaning (concept) which already is there.
John 3:16 - Context and cotext shows that God loves all men, so what is
made visible is "the whole human family".
Joh 15:18 - the context shows that what is made visible is "the human
family outside the church".
John 16:21 - our knowledge of the *world* shows that what is made visible
is "the frame of circumstances and things that the human family is in or
experiences"

There can be no doubt that KOSMOS signals the same concept in all three
cases above and that it should be translated with one English word, but
what about KOSMOS in 1 Peter 3:3, which is translated "adornment" or
something similar? I think that the Greek mind had no problems to include
this use also in the same concept, but in English "world" and "adornment"
represent two different concepts. And this illustrates a basic weakness in
much of the modern Bible translation theory. Because of "the contextual
fallacy" the English words listed under each Greek word in a Greek/English
lexicon is treated more like different *meanings* of the one Greek word
than as *glosses*, which they really are. Bible translators should
therefore stop focusing on glosses and contexts, and instead the focus
should be on the two different presupposition pools and the two different
situations of communication which are entailed in a translation of a text
from Greek to English. And a strict differentiation should on this basis be
made between "word", "concept", and "reference". If you want to read a more
detailed account of this I refer to my book on Bible translation.
(www.elihubooks.com).

BTW:In connection with verbs there is another "pointing finger" which makes
visible a part of the meaning that already is there, namely the aspects.
They have absolutely no meaning in themselves, but they help the reader
focus on a particular part of the event or state.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




























---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:46 EDT