Ha ha. Quite a different reaction to new ideas than Barry's surprise and near speechlessness. Bringing your past experiences and present assumptions about things to bear on something new is quite valid. Thank you for engaging with this so passionately.
jeidsath wrote:"Telicity" is appropriate in the right context of linguistics or composition (o[f] the right dirty limerick), but you shouldn't pull it out for times when you can say "resolution" instead.
Michael has substituted the initial "pl" of τίλλειν with an "f".
You'd have to explain a bit what you mean by "resolution". Is it like plot resolution, like when tension in the storyline is resolved - the non-specific statements of the contextualising phrase leave us wondering what will happen next, then the detailed phrase resolves our wondering? Alternatively, is it resolution like as in a high definition TV, where second phrase or verb is the detailed description of something specific? Both of those seems plausible interpretations of your "resolution" here, because they are both inherent in the phrase pairing model. If I myself was to prefer one, it would be the detailed definition one.
jeidsath wrote:"the concept of a fluid synonymy" -- Yes, words can be synonyms in some contexts but not others. I believe that this was covered in elementary school for most people.
In school you learned that recognised synonyms were limited in use by their contexts. I am saying that anything can be a synonym if it means the same thing in a given context. The meaning behind the text or implied by the text in context is the test of synonymy, not just words themself. The ultimate basis of my thinking about synonymy is Halliday's social semiotic theory.
jeidsath wrote:"logical lexicosemantic taxonomy" -- Taxonomies are rational by definition, so "logical" adds nothing. Neither does lexicosemantic add anything, as you are not actually using it to contrast against non-lexicosemantic taxonomies.
"Logical" contrasts with other taxonomies here. The assumption that you are using to counter it is indeed
being challenged by this statement. As you have correctly noticed, this is the first mention of a new idea. The relationship between the vocabulary structures of Greek, and the development of the Western ideas of logic is an interesting topic, but it doesn't seems to have direct bearing on the textual adaptations here.
As I mentioned previously (to Barry, I think), I find it useful to differentiate between three ways of deriving meaning; inherent (lexicosemantic), morphosyntactic and text structural. Using the adjective lexicosemantic here is deliberate.
jeidsath wrote:A "fluid synonymy" is completely "lexicosemantic."
You need to re-think that. Your statement here reads as "a synonymy based on context is only based in inherent meaning".
jeidsath wrote:Further, it's misleading that you've invented an imaginary conflict between fluid synonymy and rigid taxonomies of synonyms. We are all adults here, and we all understand that words can be synonyms in some contexts but not others.
Feeling that you've been misled, when your ideas are challenged is one possible reaction to new ideas. I'll leave you to get over your own reaction in this case, being as you are an adult.
jeidsath wrote:"the hyponyms imply the hypernym either severally or together (either or both)" -- the word "imply" carries all the meaning here, with the other words adding nothing real.
Ditto from above for this part of the tantrum too. Of course there is meaning in the whole phrase - simply saying "imply" doesn't say as much as the phrase.
Within these three retellings of the story, we are left to imply from the logical hyponyms that the action is lawful. There is no inherent need, as this example shows, to use the logical hypernym in the contextualising clause. In other passages, however, there is a much more explicit logical relationship between the contextualising and detailed, such as the two types in Acts 8:3 Σαῦλος δὲ ἐλυμαίνετο τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατὰ τοὺς οἴκους εἰσπορευόμενος, σύρων τε ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας παρεδίδου εἰς φυλακήν., where in the first pair going into the houses of the Christians is an example or explanation of how he mistreated the church, and in the second the place he ultimately dragged them to is prison.
Let me step aside from the reply to Joel, for a moment, to mention something not already mentioned. One of the important things in composition is the relationship between structural hyponyms and hypernyms. While they do seem to be an open ended set at first, their repetition suggests that they might be more formulaic. Perhaps the most obvious one in use in the gospels is the one containing ἀποκριθεὶς ... εἶπεν. That raises the question of whether the structural hypernym limits the choice of structual hyponyms or the opposite, that the second phrase has a number of first phrase contextualisers to choose from. In the case of ἀποκριθεὶς ... εἶπεν we could say that logically, "answer" is the hyponym of "speak", because answering infers speaking, but that is counter-intuitively not the case. The contextualisingly structural nature of the two-phrase pattern says that answering (them/him/her) is the context in which he spoke. Looking at only logical taxonomy, without considering structural taxonomy might lead to wrong conclusions about the nature of structural taxonomy. The easiest resolution to that dilemma is to say that ἀποκρίνομαι is not a verb of speaking, and is not in the logical taxonomy of speaking verbs.
jeidsath wrote:Fix the mushy thinking, please! The 2 dollar words don't hide it, and actually make the problem worse. Once you're thinking clearly, then you'll know exactly the right time to deploy them.
There is always a tension between expression and thought. Forcing thoughts into rigid structures of expression can lead to "logic" simplifying thought. Some of the things you've said here or implied like that taxonomy is by definition logical, hypernyms and hyponyms are a binary pair that doesn't need to be stated, or that every primary school student knows synonymy is only applicable in some contexts may not have been misunderstood if your thoughts had more freedom to creatively range, outside of the strictures of logic.
Satyrs with glass beards should not throw parties.