[b-hebrew] XSD

Read, James C K0434995 at kingston.ac.uk
Thu Aug 25 04:41:01 EDT 2005

Just an observation as a passive listener.

I come from a highly scientific background and as such have always been inclined to 
base understanding on observations and proofs.
I haven't studied this particular word enough to have formulated an opinion on it 
but one thing I will say is that Karl's words below are irrefiutable.
Having grown up with such a family Karl will have experienced firsthand the flaws and 
limitations of 'experts'. 'Expertise' is often a description bestowed upon a minority 
because of position or affluence.
e.g. My English students often used to tell me that I spoke 'bad English'. Why? Because 
I used to say 'I'll' or 'I will' whereas their schooling had taught them that first person 
singular demands 'I shall'. What was this based on? Grammars written hundreds of years ago by 
elite minorities from Cambridge or Oxford. Who gives such a minority the right to represent 
what is correct English? Having always heard 'I'll go' it seemed natural English to me and 
to countless other English people I know. But according to a handful of affluent individuals 
the rest of the English speaking world is apparently wrong. And just because its written in an 
'authoritive book' they have manages to convince a large number of foreign English students that
their English is better than my own. What kind of a linguistic system is that?

Recourse to scholars usually indicates a lack of ability to support one's position from data 
alone. And IMNSHO all discussion on this list should be based on data alone if it is to be 
taken seriously.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Karl Randolph
Sent: Thu 8/25/2005 8:49 AM
To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XSD
Dear Harold:

I am not going to argue with you.

First of all, I come from an academic family. At least 
two of my great-grandparents had masters degrees, 
all four of my grandparents graduated from college 
programs, one was a professor, both my parents have 
PhDs and have taught at universities, and you expect 
me to be awed by "experts"? C'mon!

Basically, we differ on methodology, and until we can 
come to a consensus on that, we will never come to a 
consensus on the other issues that divide us. You 
believe the scholarly consensus is infallible; I see it, 
like any other human endeavor, often taking wrong 
turns. You claim that an interpretation that is old, it 
is right just because it is old; I counter that even 
traditions can be in error. While you base your 
studies on scholars and traditions, I base mine on 
methodology. One part of the methodology is that it is 
very rare for a lexeme to have two or more distinctly 
different definitions. Another part is to use an 
unpointed text. Another is where there are synonyms 
and antonyms recognized, that comparisons with these 
can help. And there are others.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard at ont.com>

> Dear Karl,
> HH: But a persistent myth is different than the credible knowledge of
> the scholarly community. There is etymological data from other
> Semitic languages, and signs of the same root being used the same way
> in Hebrew. That is not a myth. Nor have you refuted the existing
> belief.
> 				Yours,
> 				Harold Holmyard

Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com

b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list