Download The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic Traditions: by Wout J. van Bekkum, Jan Houben, Ineke Sluiter, Kees PDF

By Wout J. van Bekkum, Jan Houben, Ineke Sluiter, Kees Versteegh

This learn goals to supply a comparative research of the position of semantics within the linguistic concept of 4 grammatical traditions - Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic.

Show description

Read Online or Download The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic Traditions: Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic PDF

Similar foreign language study & reference books

Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations

This publication explores the character of finiteness, considered one of most typically used notions in descriptive and theoretical linguistics yet almost certainly one of many least understood. students representing quite a few theoretical positions search to elucidate what it really is and to set up its usefulness and boundaries. In doing so that they display cross-linguistically legitimate correlations among topic licensing, topic contract, annoying, syntactic opacity, and self reliant clausehood; exhibit how those houses are linked to finiteness; and speak about what this implies for the content material of the class.

Motorbuch Verlag Das waren die deutschen Kampfflieger-Asse 1939-1945

Das Temperament pr#228;gt den Charakter. Nie kam dies deutlicher zum Ausdruck als in den verschiedensten Einsatzm#246;glichkeiten des Fliegers im Zweiten Weltkrieg. »Die Bomber hatten eine vom Jagdflieger verschiedene Einstellung«, schreibt Werner Baumbach #252;ber den Typ des Kampffliegers. »Die artwork ihres Einsatzes #252;ber weite Strecken, in das Hinterland des Feindes, #252;ber See, bei Schlechtwetter und bei Nacht, der geschlossene Angriff im Verbandsflug, #252;berhaupt die Eigenschaften des langsameren Bomberfluges, all das bestimmt das Gesicht des Kampffliegers, der #228;u#223;erlich ruhiger, ausdauernder, gesetzter (in der Jagdfliegersprache: »sturer«) erschien.

Extra info for The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic Traditions: Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic

Example text

In the introducˇ ah sets the limits for adducing comparative tion to S¯efer Harriqm¯ah, Ibn Gan¯ evidence from other languages. Some of the ancient rabbis explained the meaning of Hebrew words with the help of Greek, Persian, Arabic, African and other languages. This evidence is too far-fetched in the eyes of Ibn ˇ ah. He states that only Aramaic and Arabic are fit for comparison because Gan¯ of their similarity to Hebrew in the verbal system of weak verb forms ˇ ah criticizes contemporary (Wilensky 1964: 18).

Ibn Ezra specifically attacks Christian sages who exploit allegories and riddles for the sake of their own faith. Finally, the fifth way represents Ibn Ezra’s personal option: grammatical and rational insights support the search for unambiguous understanding of Scripture which is realized in p˘esˇa¯ t. This type of p˘esˇa¯ t cannot be learned from earlier commen´af¯ah tators, not even from Rashi. Ibn Ezra states in his grammar book S¯ B˘er¯ur¯ah, ‘‘Pure Language’’: ‘‘I shall speak about notions which are compared to souls whereas words resemble bodies… d˘er¯asˇ is only an addition to notion and subsequent generations have set all d˘er¯asˇ as a basic principle like Rabbi Solomon who wrote a commentary on Scripture by d˘er¯asˇ.

Lexical analysis was in his eyes subject to ambiguity. In the words of Maimonides: ‘‘These subtle meanings that nearly elude the minds cannot be expressed in ordinary words, which are the greatest cause leading unto error. For the bounds of expression in all languages are very narrow to us indeed, so that we cannot imagine that meaning to ourselves except through a certain looseness of expression’’ (I,57; 132–3). (wa-l¯a tu tabaru h a¯ dihi l-ma a¯ n¯ı d-daq¯ıqa llat¯ı [y]ak¯adu taf¯utu [l-]’adh¯an bi-l-’alf¯az al-mu t a¯ da llat¯ı hiya ’akbar sabab f¯ı t-ta˙gl¯ıt li-’anna[hu] tad¯ıqu bin¯a’ al- ib a¯ ra gˇ iddan gˇ iddan f¯ı kull lu˙ga hatt¯a l¯a natasawwaru d¯alika l-ma n a¯ ’ill¯a bi-tas¯amuh f¯ı l- ib a¯ ra (139) / w˘el¯o yitb¯on˘en¯u ’¯ell¯u h¯a iny a¯ n¯ım haddaqq¯ım kim˘e a¯ t sˇeyyibb¯azr¯u min ha´ss´e¯ kel b˘emill¯ot n˘eh¯ug¯ot ’asˇ er h¯em hassibb¯ah hagg˘ed¯ol¯ah b˘ehat a¯ ’¯ah k¯ıy y¯az¯er b¯an¯u haddibb¯ur m˘e’¯od m˘e’¯od b˘ekol l¯asˇo¯ n ad sˇell¯o n˘ezayy¯er h¯a iny a¯ n hah¯u ’ell¯a b˘eh¯aq¯el haddibb¯ur) (85) In this view ma n a¯ cannot be sufficiently expressed in the strictness of ordinary words, but is only indicated by ‘‘looseness of expression’’.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.64 of 5 – based on 50 votes