Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Moderators:
Do we really need to put up with this?  I confess I didn't read to the
end of this post, because what I did read is so riddled with personal
attacks, condescending pot-shots and insults that I couldn't make
it through the post.

> To Dave Washburn:
>
> Your response is an amusing and quite standard display of, as a
> friend of mine is fond of saying, "excusogetics".
>
> Would you like me to explain what "excusogetics" is, why the word
> is a noun and why, in the context of this discussion, it is a
> perfectly valid made-up word, and therefore why it actually IS a
> word? When you get off an airplane, do you understand when the
> flight attendants talk about "deplaning"?
>
> > Note: I read material like this and then think "And I'm the one
> who gets accused of sounding arrogant."
>
> The material you quoted from me was not arrogant, because it
> simply stated facts. On the other hand, my words above certainly
> sound arrogant. How do you like a dose of your own medicine?
>
> > But I'll let that pass.
>
> Thank you, O Great Oz!
>
> > It's easy to say "Because the phrase FUNCTIONS as a nominal, it IS a 
> > nominal, but it's another
matter to prove it grammatically.
>
> Correct, but because I've done that, it's no longer an issue. All of the 
> material that you conven
iently snipped and failed to comment on helped prove it. The material I put 
in my first post (which
 I'm not sure actually ma
> de it to the list) proved it.
>
> On the other hand, you've offered nothing by way of factual disproof -- 
> you've simply issued blan
ket denials without offering support beyond the mere fact that you disagree. 
If you want to actuall
y prove your case grammat
> ically, you have to do it by presenting convincing facts and arguments, not 
> simple assertions.
>
> Here is a good bit of advice: The magazine "Technology Review", 
> February/March 1992, published an
 article titled "Looking for a Few Hungry Samurai." It gave general advice 
(p. 5) to moonlighting a
uthors who might want to
> write articles for the magazine, and offered a few suggestions on how an 
> author could make his wr
iting a success:
>
> << Don't preach to the converted. Readers want to know your opinions, even 
> those with strong poli
tical implications. But it's important to assume that readers are intelligent 
skeptics who don't al
ready agree with you - ot
> herwise, why bother to write? - yet who are willing to be convinced. The 
> key is to present enough
 material, including a fair rendering of opposing viewpoints, so that readers 
can decide for themse
lves. "The best way I kno
> w of persuading you of anything," says MIT physicist Philip Morrison, "is 
> not to plead with you t
o trust me, not to invoke authority in general, not even to call upon some 
expert, but to show you
just what it is that pers
> uaded me." >>
>
> In these posts I have tried to apply Morrison's advice, whereas you have 
> done exactly what he sai
d not to do.
>
> So let's try again: According to Webster's, a "nominal" is "a word or word 
> group functioning as a
 noun". According to _The Essentials of Grammar_ (Hayden Mead & Jay 
Stevenson; The Philip Lief Grou
p; 1996; p. 145), "nomina
> l forms are nouns made from verbs or adjectives."
>
> I assume you agree with these definitions. If not, then tell us why not.
>
> Going along with Dan's thesis, if the second use of "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 
> is a name, then it is a
 nominal by the standard definition of "nominal". Since "I am" is normally a 
verb form, this use ce
rtainly fits the notion o
> f "a word group functioning as a noun", wouldn't you say? And it certainly 
> fits the notion of a '
noun made from a verb', so it is by definition a "nominal form".
>
> If you disagree, then present your reasons and display some references that 
> contradict the above
listed ones. If you are unable to present any reasons for disagreement, then 
admit it and I'll let
it pass.
>
> > I've already been over this with Peter, and it's clear we're not going to 
> > resolve it because we
're beginning with two completely different theories of grammar.
>
> Your "theory" agrees with a similar theory advanced and enforced by 
> L'Académie française. The Eng
lish-speaking world has no equivalent to L'Académie. So far as I am aware, 
the people who wrote the
 Bible did not have one e
> ither. So much for your "theory", as you'd like it to apply to Hebrew and 
> English. But again, I'm
 open to discussion of actual facts.
>
> > My child might use a telephone book as a booster chair, but because it 
> > FUNCTIONS as a booster c
hair does not mean it IS a booster chair.  If I say "Hand me the sky" it is 
not a valid sentence si
mply because I said it.
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges here.
>
> Language is a dynamic, ever-changing thing, even when there is something 
> like L'Académie français
e to act as a brake. Words change their meaning through usage. Someone 
invents a new usage or coins
 a new word and it catche
> s on, or people begin borrowing from another language, and a word becomes 
> part of the language. D
espite the objections of L'Académie française, it is perfectly proper French 
to say, "bon weekend".
 It is fine to look for "
> le parking". Verbs come to be used as nouns, and vice versa, and sometimes 
> the old usage is dropp
ed altogether.
>
> On the other hand, a telephone book is not dynamic. It always remains a 
> telephone book. But even
so, while a book used as a temporary chair physically remains a book, while 
it is being used as a c
hair it BECOMES a chair -
> - if only for a few moments -- in the sense that we can easily accept the 
> broader concept that "c
hair" is not limited to the narrow notion of "piece of furniture made to sit 
on", but can be extend
ed to "thing you sit on".
>
>
> But words have no such physical limitations. People are free -- and they 
> use their freedom -- to
do all sorts of things with words, and this activity results in the continual 
creation of new words
. I'm sure you had no pro
> blem figuring out what "excusogetics" means. Similarly, while you and 
> people like members of L'Ac
adémie might have objected for a time, people in general had no trouble 
understanding what "let's i
nterface on this" meant w
> hen the new verbal usage was first becoming popular.
>
> Thus, if a verb phrase is used as a name, it BECOMES a name --
> even if it is only in that particular context. For you to argue the
> opposite would be like arguing that "Dances with Wolves" is not a
> name because it was only used in one movie.
>
> How do you think language evolves? How do you think new words
> are accepted into a language? By divine decree? By some outfit
> like L'Académie française issuing a ruling?
>
> > The rest of Alan's post is old ground that I have already dealt with,
>
> Not so. Pretending to deal with part of a post by dismissing most
> of it without a bit of argument is not dealing with it, unless by "deal"
> you mean "ignore". But that's certainly a valid usage for a lot of
> people.
>
> > so I will refer the interested reader to the archives in the interest
> of bandwidth.
>
> Do you know how many times I've heard this excuse in online
> discussions? The poster who uses it invariably has engaged in
> massive excusogetics and uses the great mass to confuse issues
> and readers. When someone actually takes the time to look in
> archives, they find little or nothing of substance.
>
> Either deal with the issues I've raised, here and now, or admit you
> were wrong. That's what any honest scholar would do.
>
> Alan Feuerbacher
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [dwashbur AT nyx.net]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
> leave-b-hebrew-90212Y AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."