[Lexicog] Re: When Semantics Doesn't Matter

[bolstar1]

-John: I used "lexeme" in its broader, and I think more elegant and 
proper, sense – much as Oxford Companion to the English Language 
does. For example, Oxford extends the concept to include "kick the 
bucket" as a lexeme (phrasal lexeme) for "death."  David Crystal does 
the same in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 
wherein he includes "It was raining cats and dogs." as a lexeme. I 
find this appealing, as it speaks to meaning (function) as opposed to 
category (form). I side with function more than form in analyzing set 
phrasal units and rhetorical devices. (NOTE: big difference between 
set phrases -- and compositional, or created, phrases.) There are 
just too many examples where the two don't mesh, and function is self-
evidently more important to a reader than the form they take (e.g. 
many of the prepositional phrases – though adverbial or adjectival in 
function, are relational (prepositional) in appearance – or vice 
versa  -- 1) at a loss to explain = prepositional form for the 
adverbial lexeme "speechless"; in a quandary = prep. form for adv. 
lexeme "perplexed"; win fair and square. = compound adjective lexeme 
for the adverbial "fairly." Form-function dissonance abounds in the 
English language
and I assume it to be true in other languages as 
well. Caveat: there is a place to identify form, rather than, or in 
addition to function. But for the sake of this discussion, it is the 
reason I took "apparent" liberty in its use. Additionally, this is 
one reason, among many, that computer-generated corpora cannot 
replace good, old-fashioned trench-work in "parsing," and I use that 
term broadly, too, spoken and written English. 
     So for the operant boundaries (underlying lexeme) of the 
terms "chiasmus" and "antistrophe" I should have said, "inverse order 
of roots or root-variants" (note: not form/category per se and not 
function per se). John, as to your examples, I noticed that they 
basically fall under the category "created phrases" or "compositional 
phrases" or if they caught on in the vernacular "coined phrases" -- 
rather than set phrases. Here, dictionary precedent refers to 
classically-oriented rhetorical literature or poetry, not strings of 
possible uses. Yet, by definition, and by intuition, if one asked 
what rhetorical device that speaker/writer was using, it still would 
have to be "chiasmus" or "antistrophe." What else could they be 
called? Which was my original question.

Scott N.
 

------     Note Oxford Companion's abbreviated entry below 
regarding "lexeme."    -------

Tom McArthur's Oxford Companion to the English Language (editor), 
with Robert F. Ilson (University College of London (contributor) -- 
editor of International Journal of Lexicoraphy – at the time of 
publication ) – editing the entry for `lexeme'.

"A unit in the lexicon
governed by sound and writing or print, 
its content by meaning and use. Thus, penicillin is the realization 
in print of a single English lexeme, while the nouns crane and 
bank represent at least two lexemes each: crane (a particular  bird 
and a particular machine), bank (the shore of a river and a 
particular kind of financial institution. Conventionally, a lexeme's 
inflections (such as cranes, banks) are considered variant forms, 
whereas such derivatives as banker are considered separate lexemes

[later, exemplifying lexemes] (groups of words)
the idiom "kick the 
bucket"." 

OED: 
A word-like grammatical form intermediate between morpheme and 
utterance, often identical with a word occurrence; a word in the most 
abstract sense, as a meaningful form without an assigned grammatical 
role; an item of vocabulary.

Encarta: 
A fundamental unit of the vocabulary of a language : makes, making, 
maker, made  


Merriam-webster" 
The fundamental unit of the lexicon of a language. (e.g. find: finds, 
found, finding)   
 
> 
> bolstar1 wrote:
> > John: Good point. <snip>
> > I have to take "inverse order of words" as an underlying lexeme 
in 
> > determining categories for this type of use. It seems to be less 
> > confusing. 
> >  -- I'm interested in hearing more of your observations -- 
> >
> >   
> I guess it then depends on what you mean by "underlying lexeme". 
Which 
> of these would you consider examples of antistophe/chiasmus? (I am 
not 
> sure if we have decided there is a difference?):
> 
> an intriguing mystery and a mysterious intrigue
> plate glass and a glass plate
> a wedding ceremony and a ceremonial wedding
> a dogged hunter and a hunting dog
> a jealous rage and a raging jealousy
> flying colours and coloured flies
> barbarous cruelty and a cruel barbarian
> a raving beauty and a beautiful rave
> a crooked arm and an armed crook
> boyhood and a hooded boy
> forfeit a claim and claim a forfeit
> to demand satisfaction and to satisfy a demand
> cook the books and book the cooks
> change her mind and mind her change
> ring the changes and change the rings
> cry baby and baby cry
> keep in the dark and dark in the keep
> dead of the night and night of the dead
> nearest and dearest and dearest and nearest
> 
> I think there is more than just reversing words going on in these 
> examples. It also depends on what you think a lexeme is.
> 
> John R
> 
> 
> -- 
> ********************
> John R Roberts
> SIL International Linguistics Consultant
> dr_john_roberts at ...
> ********************
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:lexicographylist-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:lexicographylist-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/