Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In an article entitled "Is BAD a semantic primitive?" (1996), John Myhill suggested that the concept 'bad' should be removed from the list of semantic primitives put forward by Anna Wierzbicka and Cliff Goddard. Myhill argued (1) that 'bad' is semantically decomposable, (2) that there is no word in Biblical Hebrew that corresponds to the English word bad and, thus, no linguistic form that represents the primitive BAD in this language, and (3) that 'bad' is dispensable in the semantic analysis and can be replaced with other components without any loss or change of meaning. Discussing and illustrating some fundamental questions in the search for universal semantic primitives, the present author reconsiders these findings and finds a different answer to John Myhill's question.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error