Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Historical Linguistics / Re: Man vs. Beast
« Last post by Incancepype on Today at 12:03:50 PM »
Z które napotkają), jakiej o tak dalece przyzwoicie wiążę, nie było w ekscentryku. ORAZ lecz projekt na podsycanie niezależnych twórców w ich niecodziennych internet na karte koncepcjach to nie owo samo co IP konotowane w charakterze „AAA”, to zawżdy lepsze to niż zero. Hodowanie lokalnej bułki naprowadza cokolwiek grę w Tamagotchi oraz także nie jest zbyt trudne. Tejże wypranie nie istnieje końcem polskich przygód spośród ciuchami, skoro należy jeszcze rozwiesić ulewnego łachy na suszarce ewentualnie apiać uprościć sobie bytowanie a skorzystać spośród suszarki samoczynnej. Udane pranie (woniejącego, milutkie, cieplutkie...) owo zabezpieczenie dobrego samopoczucia tuż przy recenzje gier planszowych Gdy na sprężysty glob przyjęło, sklepy, szkolenie azaliż domki rozmieszczają się w kartonach, i w wyposażeniu nie prawdopodobnie zawieść koszyczków do spania, kaloryferów, zbiorników z karmą czy kuwet ze żwirkiem. Ostatecznie tedy kwalifikacja będzie koturnowa. O do tego stopnia istnieje spośród kim, kwestia zrozumiała. Nieczęsto maci recenzje gier 2012 batalię interpretować takie „pierwiastek” w recenzjach, aliści Fe naprawdę nie pozyskałoby powiększonej walki marketingowej tudzież bezpiecznie niektórzy nasi czytelnicy nawet w żadnym razie nie słyszeli o tym urzędzie.
Most of what you said makes sense, but you would also want to look at why this particular instance uses "girl" instead of "woman", just as much as the comparisons you suggest. If it's a rare word, then there must be some reason for using it (e.g., Relevance).
First, I don't see how the original text could have literally said "virgin", when we have a reasonable amount of evidence that it said "עַלְמָה". Nor could the text have meant "virgin" because English is not The Universal Semantic Language, where meaning across languages is defined in terms of English words. The first question that should be asked is what the evidence is that עַלְמָה refers (ever, generally, or in this instance) to a female who has not had sex (however that be defined). At which point, one would investigate all of the attestations of the word (all 7) and determine whether it definitely has that meaning in any other context (IMO, no). We might find that the word is only assigned the translation "virgin" in one text occurrence. We would also look at the masculine word עֶלֶם, which conventionally translates to "boy", to see if it too evidences the added condition "has not had sex". One would also want to check whether there exists an unambiguous Hebrew term that means what we mean when we say "virgin" – בְּתוּלָה. Maybe it too is ambiguous, but if the author's intent was to specifically communicate "has not had sex", why wouldn't the author just say that? In a Scalian court of law, the evidence would be found to show that the text says "girl" and not "virgin".

You would also want to look for evidence that the corresponding term in later translations and texts (Greek, Latin) had that specific meaning, that is, determine from context what the meaning of παρθένος is, and the meaning of virgo, and check for consistency (is עַלְמָה always translated as παρθένος, or only in one verse?). As I understand, there are two Greek translations for עַלְמָה, παρθένος and νεανις: when and why are there different Greek translations?

In contemporary English, if you say "My brother is a virgin", that means i.e. literally entails that your brother has not had sex. If you say "My brother is dead", that only linguistically entails permanent death because death is not a reversible condition. Whereas, talking about your virgin brother does not linguistically entail that he is a permanent virgin. This is not a quirk of English, this is a fact about human language, that conclusions of the kind "is and will forever after remain" are not linguistically entailed, unless you actually include some expression to that effect – "Behold, a permanent virgin shall conceive...".

This is an example of underspecification. English, Hebrew, etc., do not have temporal information associated with nouns. There are languages that have nominal tense, so that something like "ex-president" and "president-elect" (or "ex-virgin" and "future-virgin") could be encoded grammatically, but that's not the case here. So yes you are correct. Otherwise it could also indicate that someone is permanently a virgin, such that Jesus's virgin birth would be nullified if Mary ever had sex after his birth too.

However, as you point out the sentence is ambiguous (actually, it's vague, underspecified, because it isn't strictly a set of particular alternatives, unless you assume a finite set of times at which to evaluate "the virgin"), and it may still be the case that the meaning of "virgin at the time of birth" was intended. This is a matter of interpretation and context, not inherent in the semantics. The literary and cultural context, as well as other verses, might clarify this. For one thing, given the attention this has gotten, wouldn't it be weird to mention she's a virgin before becoming not a virgin inherently by the information in the sentence?

Note also that the sentence could be interpreted as her becoming not a virgin while already pregnant with Jesus who was conceived immaculately.

In other words, this sentence is up to interpretation. The question is how the words were intended to be interpreted, not how they could possibly be interpreted.

I will say that generally the easiest interpretation is one of consistency, which also explains why nominal tense only rarely develops (contrastive use is rare, even though it would be useful in those cases). That is, assuming that "the virgin" applies throughout the moment of speech, the event described, and so forth, makes sense. A "permanent" reading, unless otherwise indicated, is a reasonable default. So personally I'd be more likely to focus on the ambiguity of "virgin" vs. "young woman", because those seem the most likely to be used in these circumstances. (It would make little sense and be of little relevance to say "the current virgin [who will later not be a virgin after conception] will give birth".)
I have seen people tear each other's throats out over the following sentence.

"Behold, he Virgin shall conceive and bear a son , and call him Immanuel".

The controversy for those who don't know is the Hebrew word Alma.

Supposedly it could mean young woman or it could mean virgin, but the reason everyone is so uptight about the translation is because it's supposed to be evidence for the Virgin birth of Jesus.

However it seems to me perfectly possible that the original text literally says "virgin" and for the sentence to still mean " the person who is a virgin now will have sex and give birth later".

It seems like if you were to argue that " the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son" must mean that the Virgin will be a virgin at the time that she gives birth that you would also have to say the following:

"The Virgin shall grow up and receive the Medal of honor" is true if and only if the subject of that sentence is a still virgin at the time of receiving the Medal of Honor.

That seems absurd to me.

Am I correct that " the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son" is grammatically consistent with both the interpretation that the Virgin will be a virgin at the time of the birth and the interpretation that the Virgin will no longer be a virgin at the time of the birth?

Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Semantic components and semantic primes
« Last post by vox on October 14, 2018, 08:51:58 AM »
Quote from: Daniel
In fact, it seems to me that it would be inherently variable in meaning.
I agree. I think Talmy calls "Manner" an empty variable to fill.   

Quote from: Mirta
It seems to me an irreducible and universal semantic component like the semantic primes. What do you think?
I’m quite sure that expressing manner is universal. The problem is the status you give to manner : a semantic category or a semantic prime ? Theoretically that makes a difference.
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Semantic components and semantic primes
« Last post by Daniel on October 13, 2018, 12:19:13 PM »
What you wrote makes sense in general to me.

As for Manner, that's a complicated issue. Talmy's approach makes sense because it's describing it as something modifying another component. But that doesn't mean it reduces to some simple meaning. In fact, it seems to me that it would be inherently variable in meaning. The similarity is just in what it modifies-- in the structural meaning.
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Semantic components and semantic primes
« Last post by Mirta on October 13, 2018, 05:15:26 AM »
Thank you very much for your quick and exhaustive response. It is a pleasure for me to have someone to share ideas with.

So, I wrote a resume of my ideas and I decided to adopt the perspective that considers semantic primes as nuclear semantic concepts maybe coded in all languages, without going into their role as absolute ingredients for the construction of all possible meanings in language.
I  compared Wierzbicka's lexical semantic theory to talmian event conceptualization briefly explaining that: Wierzbicka considers the semantic primes as pre-existing concepts, conceived as having a full meaning in isolation (despite their possible patterns of combinations) rather than acquiring it as part of a structured scheme; Talmy, instead, considers the semantic elements in the event schemas as just the most relevant semantic components that we can find in the expression of  motion events crosslinguistically, not assuming that they are some of the semantic nuclear basis of all meanings.

Does it make sense?

As far as the specific component of Manner is concerned, I would ask: Talmy inserts the component Manner in his event schemas and doesn't talk about its composition; Wierzbicka talks about Manner indirectly, suggesting that it is a meaning resulting from the combination of the semantic primes LIKE THIS according to the context (Goddard&Wierzbicka 2002:313). How do you consider the semantic component Manner used by Talmy (but also by Jackendoff, i.e.: climb = Event [Manner CLAMBERING])? It seems to me an irreducible and universal semantic component like the semantic primes. What do you think?
Linguist's Lounge / hi everyone. greetings for all
« Last post by Kissimpus on October 13, 2018, 03:54:58 AM »
hi everyone. it is great site. thanks for all.
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Semantic components and semantic primes
« Last post by Daniel on October 11, 2018, 01:23:13 PM »
Wierzbicka's work is about lexical meaning, properties of words. Talmy's work is about function (event or conceptual structural meaning), properties of grammatical structure. There is likely to be some overlap between the two once both theories are polished, and I imagine either would accept that overlap as relevant if they accepted the details of the other theory in general but they're talking about different things. For example, words identified by Wierzbicka's categories might fit into the grammatical slots identified by Talmy, but one problem is (in)directness, because Wierzbicka's categories are so abstract that those primitives might fight into almost any part of speech in various functions, so it isn't clearly how exactly to connect the theories except to notice some conceptually similar points.

Furthermore, Talmy's work can be interpreted loosely as a description of cross-linguistic variation, rather than necessarily a theory about the inner-workings of languages. Wierzbicka's work is essentially irrelevant if it doesn't have theoretical validity-- it's analytical/predictive, not loosely descriptive.

Making a connection between these two approaches is a very interesting possibility, although your results would then be contingent on both approaches being accepted. Generally Talmy's work seems widely accepted (with a few exceptions that work out as additional details, like "equi-polent" languages where Serial Verb Constructions behave in the middle of his verb-framed and satellite-framed types), but I think partly because it is a descriptive tool rather than necessarily a theoretical analysis, in which case it might not be as strictly accepted if required to be a theoretical explanation rather than just labels. Weirzbicka's work is highly controversial (to the extent that I'd say the vast majority of linguists may reject it), although it can be interpreted less controversially if we loosen the goal from lexical decomposition of all vocabulary (a way it is often interpreted, and seems to be sometimes suggested by Wierzbicka et al. themselves), versus just an enterprise in finding common meanings cross-linguistically and thereby partial lexical decomposition for some vocabulary. The semantic primes are either ingredients to build all vocabulary (with a high burden of proof) or just common, shared cross-linguistic elements with vocabulary in all languages (still not uncontroversial, but less extreme). Note that the number of primes has fluctuated over the years such that the second interpretation might be more plausible. Regardless, there is essentially no imaginable way to get from the core primes to "tree" or "squirrel", so I personally find the second interpretation much more likely.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10