Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

[snip]


> I object strongly to the claim that linguistic convention and  the
> intrinsic meaning of a verb form are interchangeable. 
> Best regards,

I actually did not say they are "interchangeable". Please do not put 
words in my mouth. I drew attention to how the dissertation assumes that 
that there is no *relationship* between linguistic convention and 
semantic meaning. I stated, in contrast, that there is a relationship 
between the two: that linguistic convention has strong bearing upon 
meaning. Psycholinguistics has be demonstrating this again and again the 
last twenty years or more. I can provide references if you want, let me 
know.

Let me say that upon further reflection on your comments upon my 
critical comments, I notice a strong tendency for you to avoid 
interacting with the issues I raise. You even snip out the whole of my 
first point! Now, I have done the same with some of your response to me, 
but I just don't have the time or the energy to deal with it all, esp. 
when you say that you view some of the matters that I would raise as "of 
little importance", i.e. they will be a constructionally related 
assessment which you have dismissed when I posted the like previously. 
And there's all the other posts of mine the last month which you 
neglected to address issues in. So I see no point. I just want you to 
address the basic issue of methodology and the repercussions I have 
drawn attention to. You can deal with all the other unanswered stuff as 
you wish. (Interestingly, upon chasing up the link to the medical 
journal Peter provided, I see that this is also the frustration of 
people responding to you there on the issue of the Jehovah Witnesses' 
position on blood. There seems to be the tendency from you to rarely 
offer response to critique that deals with the issues raised outside of 
reiterating your basic position.)



[snip]

>
> The areas you mention were not neglected, but they were viewed of little
> importance,
> and in the study the more important issues were stressed.

How is paragogic nun of little importance for you study? The basic 
consensus has been that they are diagnostic of the long prefix verb.

How are the third-person suffix pronouns augmented with nun not 
important? Again, the basic consensus has been that they are diagnostic 
of the long prefix verb.

How are the distributions of qatal and yiqtol with "yesterday" and 
"tomorrow" of little importance when they seem to be distributionally 
the same as English?

Why aren't performatives seen to be important when the interaction of 
performative semantics would seem to have bearing upon the meaning of 
the verbal construction (see Anstey's dissertation, for example).

Why isn't the default anterior use of qatal investigated when this would 
seem to me be strongly relevant?

Etc etc?


> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo

Regards,
David Kummerow.