[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Tue Jul 7 10:42:12 EDT 2009


On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:25 AM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Karl,
>> David:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:18 PM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo at
>> hotmail.com> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Hi Karl,
>>  >
>>  > I am unable to see how wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 is progressive, that is
>>  > that the end of the action is not included.
>> That’s your problem and limitation. But because I have come to
>> disagree with it, I’m not prepared to go out and defend it.
> Well then, why expect me to either?
Who expects you to defend it? But when you admit that you don’t
understand it, how can you make even an educated criticism of it?

>>  > As far as I can tell, God
>>  > said what he intended to say, nothing more nor less. It is pure
>>  > conjecture to say that God was interrupted in what he was saying here,
>>  > since there is nothing indicating this in the context (close up view
>>  > means end point not included). Hence a perfective speech event. That's
>>  > the same with the majority of speech acts, especially divine speech
>>  > acts. (Alternatively, if we want to go with Rolf and have imperfective
>>  > aspect as resultative, it is difficult to see the verb here as
>>  > resultative, either.)
>>  >
>>  > As per dialect, you consistently avoid the issue that a dialect is still
>>  > a linguistic system.
>> If you had been listening to me, you would have heard just the
>> opposite: that because a dialect is a linguistic system, it is to be
>> taken in the same manner as a cognate language to compare to the
>> standard, not as a proof against a standard usage.
> So that means that dialect language evidence must always be treated in
> reference to the "standard language". Practically though, no "dialect
> speaker" generally makes reference to the "standard language" so as to
> subvert it etc. They just use the language they use, ie it is a system
> which can be analysed as such. And so in this way, "plod" in my examples
> still have validity.
If you had been listening, you would have heard that your dialectal
use is valid but only for within your dialect.

>>  > What's the speech community which makes up
>>  > "international, standard English", by the way?
>> This question shows ignorance. I already addressed that in a previous
>> message.
> Yes, but it wasn't convincing. How do we know that what is represented
> in dictionaries is in fact the "standard language" and not a) the
> compilers dialect; or b) a generalisation over various dialects. If b),
> why was my English dialect seemingly not represented for "plod",
> although I note that Yitzhak already pointed out that one dictionary
> entry already listed the use which I'm familiar with and which you dispute.
>>  > They certainly must have
>>  > one superior language, semantically speaking! We "dialect speakers" can
>>  > be made out as if we don't have a system of language and communicate
>>  > only with linguistic oddities having only comic value for those who look
>>  > down on us with their wholly sense-making "mother tongue".
>>  >
>> This is foolish babble in view of the above.
> Again, you produce no evidence, only rhetoric.
Look at your paragraph as you originally wrote it: it started with a
false premise because you did not listen, then it descended to a
snide, sneering comment that was completely off the wall because it
was based on that false premise.

>>  > But since you were so hung up on an example from a specific dialect, I
>>  > presented additional language examples that cannot be relegated to
>>  > dialect. But here you just avoid them.
>>  >
>> You accuse too quickly, accusing of avoiding when others see it as
>> merely not addressing an irrelevancy or that the question has already
>> been addressed elsewhere, so no need to repeat oneself.
Accusing too quickly is not nice.

> See other email.
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.

Karl W. Randolph.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list