Descripción de las aplicaciones de muestra

Because of the semantic proximity of the related meanings of different lexemes, it is essential to consider very carefully the subtle ecological and cultural differences in the sociological setting of any communication. There are, nevertheless, serious difficulties in doing this for the New Testament since we are separated historically from the New Testament context by some two thousand years and there are no present-day speakers of the Greek of the New Testament to provide the kind of information about usage that only na-tive speakers can know. Despite much excellent lexicographical work already done on New Testament vocabulary, it often seems that what we do not know greatly outweighs what we know.

A study of the different contexts in which a lexeme can occur (as de-scribed in Chapter 3) provides much information about possible contexts, but this process does not help establish the boundaries of such uses. And since the size of the New Testament is quite limited, there are many gaps in the occurrence of terms which might help determine just how extensive a range of contextual application a particular lexeme might have.

Whereas in Chapter 3 the methodology of analysis is based primarily on studying the syntagmatic (or "combinatory") contexts of words, that is to say, the verbal contexts in which such lexemes occur, in Chapter 4 the analysis is based more on paradigmatic contexts in which two or more semantically related lexemes might occur. If, for example, two seemingly related words occur in parallel or analogous contexts and especially if they occur within the same type of context, this is useful in establishing potential ranges and possi-ble meanings. For example, ^TTV€vpae and vovs* contrast effectively in

1 Corinthians 14.14, iav yap Trpoaevymp-ai ykwcrar), TO 7Tvevp.d p.ov

TrpoatvytTai, 6 8e vom p.ov aKapiros koriv 'for if 1 pray in a strange tongue, my spirit indeed prays, but my mind has no part in it.' Note also the occur-rence of i//"ux??^a and irvevpa^ in a parallel construction in Hebrews 4.12,

ANALYZING THE RELATED MEANINGS OF DIFFERENT LEXEMES 83

htKVOvp,€VOS a-xpt p.tpio-pov \frv)(fj$ ^KCLL Trvevparos It cuts all the way through to where physical life and spirit meet.*

But unless there is some distinguishing feature in the context, the mere occurrence of words with- related meanings does not guarantee their existence as distinct entities. For example, the command in Matthew 22.37, ayair-qcreis

Kvpiov ^TOP Oeov ^(TOV kp okrj rr\ /capot'a crov ^KM iv okrj ^TTJ ^V)(f? a o v m%i *^v rff hmvolq aov love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,' does not necessarily mean that KapUa, "^fvyji, and btavoLa are distinct faculties. The use of all three terms may be simply a rhetorical device for emphasis, rather than an assertion that these faculties are distinct entities. In fact, in L and N pom® and ^8idyotaa are treated under the same entry, since there seems to be no way to distinguish two different desig-native meanings. Before studying sets of semantically related lexemes, it is, however, useful to note a number of important features of semantic domains.

Semantic Domains

Semantic domains are organized in terms of the number and types of shared semantic features of lexemes. The major divisions of these domains are (1) entities (also called objects), (2) activities (events, happenings), (3) characteristics (quantities, qualities, states), and (4) relations. The class of entities includes proper names of places (e.g. Jerusalem, Galilee), persons (e.g.

Pontius Pilate, Isaiah), and events (e.g. Passover, Pentecost), all of which have unique referents and hence do not have designative meanings, but may have associative meanings, e.g. Saul vs. Paul. The pronouns substitute primarily for entities, though they may also substitute for activities (e.g. ft in f didn't do it) and for characteristics (e.g. it in it was hideous, as a response to a question about a particular color).

As already noted, negatives are generally combined with positives (unless the subtypes are too numerous), e.g. ayados/KaKOs 'good/bad' and itokmJ oklyos 'many/few⁵ or 'much/little.' Derivatives are placed with their morpho-logical bases, e.g. hmawm 'to declare or make righteous' with Sueaios 'righteous,' and <raA.7u£a> 'to play the trumpet' and craAmarTfc 'trumpeter' with

<rakmy£ 'trumpet,' since in the case of derivatives at least some of the seman-tic content of the base is incorporated into the meaning of the derived forms, usually by the addition of one or two semantic features, e.g. 'to cause to* or 'one who' (KpepavvvM 'to cause to hang' from Kptp.ajj.aL 'to hang' and KpiT-qs 'a judge' from Kpivm 'to judge').

In the lexical inventory of any language there are a number of major and minor domains, and how many layers of such domain structure should be recognized depends largely upon the complexity and number of semantically

included sets. As already noted, for L and N only two major layers are recog-nized, namely, domains and subdomains, but attention is also called to group-ings of domains, e.g. intellectual activities, including the domains of Psychological Faculties; Learn; Know; Memory and Recall; Think; Hold a View, Believe, Trust; and Understand. A number of interpersonal relations are grouped together in the domains of Association; Help, Care For; Guide, Discipline, Follow; Control, Rule; Punish, Reward; Hostility, Strife; and Reconciliation, Forgiveness. And there are several domains involving space, e.g. Space, Spatial Dimensions, Spatial Orientations, Spatial Positions, Spatial Extensions, and Existence in Space. It would certainly have been possible to put all of these distinct sets together into a single domain, with two or more levels of subdomains, but for the sake of ready reference and simplicity of notation in indices, splitting seems to be more advantageous than lumping.

In general there are few problems involved in assigning domain or subdomain classifications when the terms refer to physical entities or to activities, e.g. people, geographical objects, flora, fauna, artifacts, movement, Impact, and agricultural activities. But the characteristics of probability, power, capability, and ethics involve a number of crucial difficulties in which different classifications seem almost equally valid. In a sense, this is not strange, since these involve the very same problems which have concerned lexicographers and philosophers for centuries. In fact, we have not gone much beyond Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and its remarkably astute analy-sis of many value-laden words.

Insight into the relations between similar class meanings of different lexemes depends to a large extent upon recognizing the distinct ways in which various meanings relate to one another in clusters, included sets, over-lapping sets, complementary pairs, and series.

In clusters the meanings of different lexemes are close but distinctly different, and they belong to the same hierarchical level, which means that the meaning of one word is not included within the meaning of another. The following terms, which designate different kinds of oral communication, may be said to form a typical cluster:

1, Kpd^co: 'to shout.' rfrnkovBrja-av awm hvo rv(j>kol K.pa£ovT€$ 'two blind men followed him and shouted' Matthew 9.27.

2. fiaTTakoyeiti*: 'to speak repetitiously and somewhat meaninglessly.' irpoaevyppcvoi he prj j3aTTakoy^a"nr€ 'when you pray, don't repeat meaningless words' Matthew 6.7.

ANALYZING THE RELATED MEANINGS OF DIFFERENT LEXEMES ⁸⁵

3. irpbs TO ovs kakim: 'to whisper,' literally 'to speak to the ear,* 0 wpm TO