[b-hebrew] Godwin's Law and Gershman's Corollary
gershman18 at msn.com
Sun Apr 1 08:03:51 EDT 2007
Dear Mr. Kirk,
You have violated Godwin' Law by continuing the "scholarship" thread. There is something which I shall call Gershman's Corollary. The penalty for violating Gershman's corollary is that you will be harassed by an idiot.
PS What's wrong with my clock?
Ben Zoma said: Who is wise? Those who learn from all people. Pirkei Avot 4:1
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk<mailto:peter at qaya.org>
To: bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz<mailto:bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz>
Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
On 26/03/2007 02:13, Bill Rea wrote:
> I've only watched this debate from the sidelines, but it often
> appears to me that the two sides (Rolf in one corner, everyone
> else in the other) are often talking past each other. One only
> needs to look at the many posts back and forth about things which
> are ``uncancellable''. It seems to me that when Rolf says to someone
> that they doesn't understand what he's talking about that they ought to
> think that he might be right in his assertion that they don't
> understand and make a renewed effort or greater effort to get
> to grips with what is actually being claimed. Often this doesn't
> appear to be the case. ...
Bill, some of us have been examining Rolf's theories and discussing his
linguistic model and his terminology for ten years now. We have
repeatedly asked Rolf for explanations and clarifications of his
terminology, and he has very often given them. If we don't understand
what Rolf means by "uncancellable", it can only be because in the very
many posts in which Rolf has explained his meaning he has been deceiving
us about its meaning. But if its meaning is truly what Rolf says it is,
this concept has no place in the description of biblical Hebrew, and
probably none in linguistics at all.
>> OK, I'll drop the term in preference for your own "uncancellable
>> intrinsic meaning". (I still think that this equates to "uncancellable
>> semantics", but if you don't think so I'll stick to the longer version
>> "uncancellable intrinsic meaning".)
> Just looking at it, David did not say ``Ah ha! Now I get it.'' ...
That would have been a lie because clearly David had fully understood
Rolf's concepts long before that, it was just that Rolf objected to his
terminology. This particular sub-issue was purely one of terminology.
E-mail: peter at qaya.org<mailto:peter at qaya.org>
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
More information about the b-hebrew