[b-hebrew] cancellable dynamicity

David Kummerow farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Sun Jun 28 01:53:39 EDT 2009


Hi Rolf,

What you say is simply a cop-out. There is strong evidence presented 
both on this list and in my review that semantics should not be defined 
as meaning which is uncancellable. Language can indeed communicate even 
in the face of semantics which is cancellable. The case of Australian 
(?) use of "plod" is a case in point: it communicates effectively, even 
though a meaning which is uncancellable cannot be discerned. There is a 
range of semantic frames which the word triggers, and communication is 
successful in each instance.

I dispute the fact that you have presented "arguments against this that 
you and David Kummerow have presented betrays a lack of elementary 
linguistic knowledge". You have not defended your position in the face 
of the evidence we have brought, only stated your basic premise again 
and again. I have not seen you interact in any way with the linguistic 
literature I marshalled against your position in my review. Because of 
all this, I would still assert your premise of semantics as 
uncancellable is undefended and unsupported.

Sure, lets get back to BH -- why not try to demonstrate for us that 
imperfective aspect is the uncancellable meaning of WAYYIQTOL across the 
uses of wayyomer?

Regards,
David Kummerow.

BTW. I would sit up and listen to Steven Shead. He has a PhD in BH 
semantics, and his dissertation is one of the best and most valuable 
reads in BH linguistics for years.


> Dear Yitzak,
> 
> You should read a few books of elementary linguistics. In any
> language  we can speak of grammatical and ungrammatical expressions.
> There are unchangeable (synchronic) rules that govern the use of
> language, and many words have properties that cannot be changed. If
> this were not true, communication between individuals would be very
> difficult. To deny that there are unchangeable properties in any
> language simply is ridiculous.
> 
> So the arguments against this that you and David Kummerow have
> presented betrays a lack of elementary linguistic knowledge. This is
> a discussion list of BH, so let us get back to the Hebrew language.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
> 



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list