This question arose on the Bible Hermeneutics site regarding Hellenistic Greek but the question is, I would assume, universal and I hoped it could be answered here, with regard to the English language.
Can it be said that the grammar which conveys a particular word actually alters the meaning of that word. And, in particular, can the addition of an article be said, properly, to ‘alter’ the meaning ?
A particular word may have more than one meaning if it is a homonym. And that homonym may be unambiguous depending on its grammatical context. Are you well ? // The well is deep.
But is it true that the grammar which conveys a word in speech can have sufficient influence to affect the inherent meaning of a word, such that a dictionary definition becomes inaccurate ?
This is a very relevant question in the matter of translation. Can (or should) a word always be translated by a single word ? But if one allows oneself latitude to alter meaning, within different grammatical structures, then why was not a different word chosen in the language being translated ?
And if grammar changes the meaning of words, then is it wrong to insist on dictionary definitions ?
EDIT after comment : the word under discussion in BH was θεος, Theos meaning God, but I don’t think that the specific meaning will help. I was looking for a general rule, if there is one.
Answer
“My brother was arrested at the zoo.”
“What for?”
“Feeding squirrels.”
“What’s wrong with that?”
“He was feeding them to the lions.”
The verb “feed” has a variety of interpretations, depending on how many arguments you feed it and of what kind. On hearing it used with just a direct object, we naturally assume that that denotes the creature receiving the food. Then we hear “feed” used with a phrase “to N” as well, so now the grammar is different. And with this grammar, the direct object denotes the food.
Attribution
Source : Link , Question Author : Nigel J , Answer Author : Rosie F
