Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear David,

I have never used the words "uncancelable semantics," but you have. So I do 
not "try to escape the labelling,"  I just say that your label does not fit 
my work; it is a misunderstanding. You cannot label my work, and when I say 
your label is incorrect, you say that I try to escape the labelling.

According to Websters, "scrupulous" means;

"1) having or showing scruples; characterized by careful attention to what 
is right or proper;conscientiously honest and upright; 2 (a) careful of 
details, precise, accurate, and correct; exact; (b) demanding, or 
characterised by, precision, care, and exactness."

When I ask the question: "Is past tense an uncancelable part of the 
WAYYIQTOL form?," I seek a scrupulous distinction between semantics and 
pragmatics when I answer the question, and I use "scrupulous" as defined by 
Websters.

You have several times accused me of not commenting on your objections, and 
therefore I sent my previous post. From the point of view of my "scrupulous 
distinction between semantics and pragmatics" your objections and examples, 
such as the verb forms used with "yesterday" and "today" are basically 
irrelevant, and that is the reason why I previously have not made any 
comments on each of them.

I am not going out of steam. But when I now have stated why I have not 
commented on all your examples, I do not see any purpose in continuing this 
discussion.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew


Hi Rolf,

Come on Rolf, both you and I know that the quest of finding
uncancellable semantics drives your study; you even say that this must
be "scrupulous"! I'll continue to use the term until you can show that
it is otherwise -- even if you try to escape the labelling by saying
"some list-members seem to think that my method is extreme, only back
and white" and "is elementary for first grade students of linguistics,
at least in Scandinavia." These people may not have read your
dissertation, but I have, and I still think it is an accurate, brief
representational label. If you now think I'm being too nit-picky, it's
because I've followed the argument of your dissertation where the
methodology is indeed as you say there, "scrupulous".

I'm still waiting for any reading on this that you can provide. My
impression from reading that I have done is that linguists these days
have moved on from the "scrupulous" methodology to something more along
the lines of what Peter and I are advocating. But I could be wrong and
I'd appreciate some reading. I guess, though, if you can't provide me
with anything I'll case up some myself out of Olsen if she's got anything.

I note that you fail to interact with MY example, raising instead
examples where multifunctionality ISN'T really the case. Therefore, you
are able to restate again your basic premise. But this is to
misunderstand what Peter and I are saying: we aren't saying that every
grammatical item or lexeme exhibits cancellation of semantics, just that
the possibility is allowable. However, while I can't object to the
"plod" example, I can object to Hebrew "no\not": the negative semantics
can, in fact, be cancelled -- what Driver (1973) called "affirmation by
explanatory negation". The "negative" is turned into a forceful
positive, much like what I have suggested is the case with qatal being
used for exaggerated future.

What you need to address for me, still, are examples of
multifunctionality like the Hithpael - what is it's uncancellable
meaning? Ditto for Niphal etc.
Driver, G. R. 1973. “Affirmation by Exclamatory Negation.” Journal of
the Ancient Near Eastern Society 5: 107-114

RF
Hithpael and Niphal  are completely irrelevant for my model; I discuss 
conjugations and not stems. Regarding the nagative particles I did not state 
any result, I just asked a question indicating how it may be possible to 
distinguish between semantics and pragmatics.

.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo