[Lexicog] Re: When Semantics Doesn't Matter

[bolstar1]

John: Interesting points all. I also am enjoying the discussion. Let 
me first say in response that when you deal in phrases (vs. words; 
word derivatives; hyphenated words (though this category has 
conundrums of its own), you can more easily differentiate types – 
simply because a non-spaced unit has to function within certain 
categories when collocated with others. Traditionally seven 
categories, then moving to eight, then/now to nine). But set-phrases 
(vs. created phrases) set-phrases including idiomatic expressions; 
proverbs, witticisms/one-liners/axioms, etc. function a little 
differently.
     Ironically, I've found set-phrases to be, in the definitional 
sense, simpler than words. Though they are compound in form, they 
tend to be one-dimensional in function. "What I wouldn't give for an 
[ice-cold lemonade]. One could parse the root "lexeme" "what I 
wouldn't give" seven ways to Sunday, but the definition is simply "I 
want
". Even quotable quotes, like the signature John F. Kennedy 
quote "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do 
for your country." There is a whole gamut of parsable forms here, but 
definitionally it simply means "don't receive from your country, give 
to it". Granted, there are two basic meanings here, but consider the 
single, and apparently simple word "make." 
     From, this innocent driplet of a root -- comes a drove of 
differentiated deluges. "Make up" alone (not considering numerous 
other verb phrases emanating from collocated particles) have their 
own lexemic offshoots – "make up with someone"/"make up one's 
bed"/"make up one's face/make up one's mind"/"make up a (false) 
story"/"make up a list (of things to do), etc.. So your point about 
economizing on space in lexicographical works is well-taken. As a 
result of this necessary economizing, the perfect-world 
differentiation of types becomes moot at some point, or interesting 
to lexicographe/linguist-types. Each verb phrase would otherwise 
require a new headword entry. At some point also, as David Crystal 
mentioned, verbal phrases don't "have enough lexical meat" to even 
warrant the category "lexeme," much less its own entry point. 
Lexicographers make those value judgments all the time, as you 
implied by your statement. 
     However, even to there it becomes mere waste of space, for 
lexicographers and linguists disagree on so many definitions of basic 
categories already. And each proceeding generation of ling-lexers 
come up with new categories. I've heard it said the Noam Chomsky 
isn't even taught in basic linguistic classes anymore. (But that's 
another story.) 
     So back to the point about words per se (e.g. "witty" 
and "wit") -- and whether they constitute similar or different 
lexemes, or even whether they could be considered part 
of "antistrophic" use, I would say what I mentioned before.  1) 
Whether they have similar of different lexemes (in a functional 
(semantical) sense), or different forms (in grammatical sense) – they 
might be considered anti strophe. Even the fact that "antistrophe" 
has lost vogue in usage in the generations since it was introduced 
makes that particular point moot if linguists, much less educators in 
the field, no longer use the term. But that would simply beg the 
question of subsetting "chiasmus," if their needs to be a 
differentiation of the kind you mentioned. Perhaps just "reverse 
order of two roots, or two root variants in parallel phrases" would 
work.  
     You mentioned "hunting," as to whether it "would be allowed as 
antistrophe to the strophe of "hunter", for example, since "hunting" 
is not derived from "hunter"? Could "flies" be antistrophe to the 
strophe "flying", since they are clearly not the same lexeme?" 
     It's less a matter of whether they would be antistrophes to 
those strophes themselves, as much as what the compliments (attending 
words) are in the phrases with which to reverse them. In the case 
of "witty fool"/"foolish wit" they both need to be reversed. Chiasmus 
or antistrophe needs pairs -- "created tokens" or "composed tokens" 
to fulfill that role, and that would make the whole world your 
oyster.  

Scott N.




 
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/