Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Paul Zellmer" <zellmer AT digitelone.com>]

Rolf,

You are wrong to interpret that the lack of response implies no answer
to your question.  While I can only confidently speak for myself, I
decided weeks ago that, even after giving you numerous opportunities to
alter your purposes, your posts of this nature are not the honest search
for knowledge or understanding of others' positions.  They are rather
theses for debate, debate in which you will remain unconvinced no matter
what is put forth.  And, as for your attempts at falsifying what you
perceive as the dominant view of the hebrew verb (which, BTW, does not
seem to describe accurately any of the views given in response to your
posts), I have seen nothing put forward by you that would replace such a
theory by positively assisting in the interpretation of forms one comes
across in the text.  Therefore I look at what you write, and choose not
to waste my time and bandwidth responding.

This is not to say that I do not respect your abilities as a scholar or
that you are off as far as your self-limited analysis of the qatal and
yiqtol allows you to deduce.  It was perhaps a bit dishonest (in that it
was misleading) for Rolf to write a response to Rolf, but that was how
you wished to separate your ideas from your question.

Regards,

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 1999 4:29 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Telic YIQTOLs WITH past meaning


<snip>
> When nobody seemed to have an answer to these questions, at least they
did
> not deem it fit to send an answer, I made some comments myself.