[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
J.Read-2 at sms.ed.ac.uk
Wed Jul 8 02:22:33 EDT 2009
Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com>:
> Hi Karl,
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo at
>> hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Karl,
>> >> [snip]
>> >> If you had been listening, you would have heard that your dialectal
>> >> use is valid but only for within your dialect.
>> > So semantics as uncancellable meaning is invalid as a principal within a
>> > dialect, but not so within a "standard language"?
>> Is this a question showing great ignorance of linguistic principles,
>> or one that is snide and sneering?
> No, it's definitely one that I do not hold to and I would strongly
> contend against. But it's what you seem to mean when you said: "If you
> had been listening, you would have heard that your dialectal use is
> valid but only for within your dialect." That is, the the cancellable
> semantics of "plod" is only valid within my dialect, and so as such
> semantics as uncancellable meaning is only appropriate as an area of
> study and as a principle within a dialect.
This is clearly not what Karl is saying at all. The more you go down
this line the greater a distance you are putting between him and
Rolf made his statements regarding 'plod' based on one particular
variant of the English language. Personally, I see that whether that
variant is the 'standard' one or not as completely irrelevant. You
have criticised Rolf's example of the uncancellable meaning of plod
based on usage in another variant of the English language. Karl points
out that the difference between a dialect and a cognate language is
one of degree not of kind. The intimation here is that your argument
is invalid because you are using a different language than the one
used in Rolf's argument. In this I agree. If you wish to offer a valid
critique of Rolf's analysis of 'plod' then you clearly need to be
using the same snapshot of the same language. All you have proved to
me is that the uncancellable meaning of 'plod' is different in the
language you are analysing to that of 'plod' in the language that
everyone else is analysing. i.e. you see it to refer to heavy steps
rather than slow steps. You then claim that you do not see your
definition as uncancellable but do not offer any examples from your
dialect that prove your definition to be cancellable. This is bad
academic practice on every conceivable level.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
More information about the b-hebrew