Hi Logmachist. You're reading a book on semantics as opposed to general semantics. Semantics is a decidedly different field than what we typically talk about in our forums.

Semantics is a field that deals with classification of words; general semantics is a field that deals with sanity, specifically by teaching modern scientific thinking. While there does happen to be an interest in language and words in general semantics, it is more in language revision than in classifications of words like what you're asking. It's a common mistake to confuse semantics and general semantics. It doesn't help that some people in the field of general semantics have labeled it simply "semantics"!

That's not to say you won't get a helpful answer to your question here. Just want to give you a head's up!

Ben

Well that was embaressing. Maybe my post should be deleted for being off topic?

If you'd like me to, I can delete the discussion. But you don't need to be embarrassed--the confusion happens lots of the time, and it's always helpful to be able to distinguish between the two topics.

I can also keep this topic open in case there are any semanticists that visit who also have an interest in general semantics. Your call. Honestly, as a moderator, I'm happy to keep it up in case someone comes along with some guidance for you.

Ben

I appreciate Ben keeping the topic open. It does help to keep the subjects of "semantics" and General Semantics distinct. From my own understanding and reading, much of what we once called "semantics" we now call "Semiotics," or the scientific study of signs and symbols. As with any field of study, its originators often develop their own jargon terminology, and -- having invented a neologism -- then proceed to try and find out what they mean by it. The introductory comments by Logomachist about the book he read remind me of this phenomenon. For example, as Ogden and Richards wrote in The Meaning of Meaning (1923):

"How great is the tyranny of language over those who propose to inquire into its workings is well shown in the speculations of the late F. de Saussure, a writer regarded by perhaps a majority of French and Swiss students as having for the first time placed linguistic upon a scientific basis. This author begins by inquiring, "What is the object at once integral and concrete of linguistic?" He does not ask whether it has one; he obeys blindly the primitive impulse to infer from a word some object for which it stands, and sets out determined to find it."

With all due respect, I disagree with Ben's definition of "semantics," as "a field that deals with the classification of words." We properly call that study "Grammar." On the other hand, "Semantics" deals with the study of "meaning," or "the relation between words and facts," which Alfred Korzybski chose to illustrate with the metaphor of "Map" (words) and "Territory" (facts). In Grammar we have categories of verbs that cover incomplete action (imperfect) as well as completed action (perfect) but Semantics wants to discover how completing an action, or failing to do so, affects the psychological behavior of persons who expected something to happen and experienced something else -- what does "surprise" or "disappointment" mean?

I just thought I'd clear that up.

In 40+ years, I have almost always used the term semantics and general semantics as being interchangable. Now I've finally caught up though I can't determine if it makes a major difference in my understanding of the ideas.