Biblical words are nolonger referential?

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Greek and Septuagint Lexicography with William Ross
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8U6EmdWNNY

9 mins into this Ross makes the breath taking claim that biblical words are "no longer referential."
That is a statement that certainly begs to be misunderstood.

[Stephen Carlson]

I try to keep up on the current terminology, but here I have no idea what he means.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

I try to up on the current terminology, but here I have no idea what he means.

I don't either. He claims to be using a "cognitive" framework but says he does not want to get bogged down explaining it.

[Stephen Carlson]

The use of a “unicorn” as an example of something non-referential suggests that he’s bringing up Bertrand Russell’s theory of reference. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/24247680

[Barry Hofstetter]

The use of a “unicorn” as an example of something non-referential suggests that he’s bringing up Bertrand Russell’s theory of reference. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/24247680

A long time staple for atheist "apologists..."

[MAubrey]

The use of a “unicorn” as an example of something non-referential suggests that he’s bringing up Bertrand Russell’s theory of reference. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/24247680

A long time staple for atheist "apologists..."

off topic.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

off topic.

Certainly, but may explain what that person means. And if my suspicion is correct, that person doesn't understand referentiality in the same way than I understand it (or at least think I understand ). It shouldn't be relevant at all if someone believes something does or does not exist, and using unicorn for reference (not sorry for the pun) may tell that he doesn't understand modern linguistics. Comments?

[William Ross]

Hey there. Thanks to James Spinti for alerting me to this thread. I don't often haunt these hallowed halls, but I'll make a brief comment here. Honestly I'm not sure why this claim would be very breathtaking although apparently it does seem to have been misunderstood. The only point I am trying to make in this ~30-second comment is that meaning is conceptual (a core theoretical commitment of cognitive linguistics) and therefore, for words to have meaning they do not necessarily have to be referential. There is a good discussion of this idea in Kroeger (2019) 15-22 if you're interested. You can get the book open access (https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/231).

[Daniel Semler]

Sounds like time to shoot the guy an email and ask him what he means.

Thx
D

[James Spinti]

Already done. He should be responding shortly.

James