41 replies to this topic

[rwrobinson88]

I wanted to post this in case anyone wanted to see it. 

 

 Screenshot 2017-11-01 20.40.32.png   214.48KB   0 downloads

 

I added a little depth on one of the complement phrases because it helped to get one valid hit.

Edited by RyanWRobinson, 01 November 2017 - 08:42 PM.

[Michel Gilbert]

 

Until someone shows me a good theoretical argument to the contrary, I view merism to be a post-syntactic interpretation process.

 

In terms of valency (verb semantics plus syntax), I see no difference between "he created fish and plants" (obviously not a merism) and "he created the heavens and the earth" or "he created good and bad".

 

 

 

Hi again,

 

Thanks. That's what I was really hoping for when I suggested an application of the double complement search, i.e., how a trained linguist would describe merism. And your description just confirms what I already thought, even though you expressed it much more elegantly. Even if there are a few merisms in the HB, post-syntactic interpretations of them differ so wildly that I wonder if the term is of much use at all. Even your two examples are open to interpretation. 

 

I guess what I was getting at is I see no difference either, and if lexical items identified as merisms are regularly separated by syntax (in adjoining clauses, phrases, etc.), then merism is definitely diminished in value. 

 

I know this is a bit off topic, but against the background of Egyptian cosmology your interpretation of בראשית (אשר) ברא . . . would benefit from השמים and הארץ being viewed as distinct entities. But of course, another case of post-syntactic interpretation process (also something I'm actually writing about).

 

Anyways, again, thanks for the linguistic comments, irrespective of whether you follow or agree with me. My heart leaps when I read these comments. 

 

Regards.

 

Michel