Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
  • Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:10:00 +0100

Dear David,

I do not want to continue this discussion, but for the record I will say a
few things. Your comments below makes me wonder if you really have read my
dissertation, or if you just have rushed through it in a short time.


----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues


snip


I think Rolf objects because to him "uncancellable semantics" is
tautologous -- for him, semantics is 100% uncancellable, so there is no
need to additionally supply "uncancellable". For him "semantics" =
"uncancellable intrinsic meaning".



This is wrong! I define "semantics" as does D. Chrystal in "A Dictionary of
Linguistics and Phonetics": "Semantics...is the study of meaning in
language". The word "meaning" (=semantics) can refer to many things;
therefore I use the qualification "semantic meaning" to refer to
uncancallable meaning. Neither "semantic" nor "meaning" refer to something uncancellable, but together I use the words as atechnical term for "uncancellable meaning", i.e, meaning that cannot be changed by the context.

My objection to this is just this
assumption -- the assumption that semantics is uncancellable, so for me
since I don't hold to his view using "uncancellable semantics" in
reference to his view is fine. The principle of uncancellable intrinsic
meaning is basically assumed in his work. In his post in reply to this
one of yours, he provides some English examples which he takes as proof
of his position; however, Peter particularly and intermittently have
replied to him in the past that such a presentation of our language is a
misrepresentation to which Rolf chooses to not respond. No progress will
be made, I think, because Rolf seems unwilling to discuss these basic
issues of methodology which have profound effects upon his critique of
past scholarship and his own conclusions regarding the BH verbal system.

You should not interpret a lack of comments as unwillingness to make
comments. I found your original examples irrelvant to my study, so I just
made some general comments. Later I commented on NUN paragogicum when
someone asked me to do so,andshowed that this was irrelevant as well.
In the past, discussions with one list-member used
to reach a point where everything just became silly. It should not be
interpreted as unwillingness when I want to avoid such discussions.



Karl seems to hold to some similar, though not identical, notion
to what an amateur like me would understand by uncancellable intrinsic
meaning. But Karl has said he doesn't know what to make of Rolf's
theory either.


Karl's approach to lexicography may perhaps be seen as analogous to
Rolf's work on the verbal system. Their approach assumes that there is
something uncancellable between every occurrence of a lexical item in
Karl's case and every occurrence of a verb form in Rolf's.

You are wrong again! I cannot understand how you can write the above words
if you really have read my dissertation. I definitely do not believe "there
is something uncancellable...in...every occurence of a verb form". The very opposite is true!
On p. 35 under the heading "The search for semantic meaning" it is said: "In this
study, therefore, we are not concerned with the thousands of verb forms
whose function is caused by the interplay of many linguistic factors, but
rather with the few hundred examples where we, with a reasonable certainty,
can know that a particular characteristic is caused by a particular verb
form alone /I add here: this is uncancellable meaning, as the context show/."
And you can hardly have read chapter 8, where a principal point is that
both aspects (YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL) can be used in the same situations without any visible
difference in meaning. This is exactly the opposite of what you say my view
is!

Bryant has several good points in his recent post: the essence is there
is a need to explicate.

I supply two examples from C. Smith "A Parameter of Aspect" (1991:149) in
order to illustrate my view of semantic meaning:

1) John has arrived.

2) #John has arrived yesterday.

There are no problems with 1), but 2) is ungrammatical, since Perfect
sentences with specifying adverbials du not appear in English. From this I
draw the conclusion that there is an intrinsic property of the Perfect verb
that forbids it to be used with adverbials signifying the past, and that
this property cannot be cancelled by the context. This is "semantic meaning"
as I define it. This property is not found in preterit verbs.



>Have you noticed, though, that Rolf never concedes anything himself?

Yes, and it is concerning to me. As Peter says this debate has been going
on for ten years or so. Mostly I've just watched. It appears to me to be
going nowhere. Some list members have suggested the apparent
misunderstanding is a religiously motivated behaviour. I tend to give
people the benefit of the doubt, so I'm currently of the opinion that the
misunderstanding is real.


Like I said, Rolf has been presented with evidence time and again with
seeming errors but chooses often not to reply. Often his reply restates
his position. The debate will continue to go nowhere if this remains the
case as it will not be able to get beyond the the issues which have been
raised but not dealt with satisfactorily. For me, I'm going to write a
longer publishable review of Rolf's work and then move on.


Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator


Regards,
David Kummerow.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page