Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

Some quotations from your dissertation:

"[T]his quality test is the scrupulous distinction between
semantic meaning (uncancellable meaning) and conversational pragmatic 
implicature (cancellable meaning) that is carried out throughout this 
dissertation" (p.47).

"The focus on lexical and morphosyntactic forms corroborates the 
principal aim of this dissertation, namely, to distinguish between 
semantic meaning (uncancellable intrinsic meaning) and
conversational pragmatic implicature (meaning based on the context)" (p.72).

"In the terms of 'semantic meaning,' that is, uncancellable meaning, the 
picture is not so clear" (p.73).

"The facts outlined in the previous paragraph suggest that the Hebrew 
participle has no particular 'semantic meaning,' that is, it has no 
specifically defined characteristic that is uncancellable
and that is independent of the context" (p.160).

"Because the infinite forms do not have uncancellable properties, and 
semantic meaning cannot therefore be ascribed to them, they have many 
different functions" (p.169).

"We should remember that semantic meaning per definition is 
uncancellable" (p.197,n.214).

I leave it for others to decide if I have represented you.

I accept that from your point of view that some of my questions may seem 
irrelevant. Nevertheless, they are issues which need to be addressed if 
your individual theory is to be accepted more widely than you yourself. 
They are areas which others discuss in relation to the verbs, some of 
which some scholars take to be diagnostic, but areas not discussed by 
your dissertation.

Again, I appeal to you to demonstrate how your methodology is able 
pinpoint "uncancellable intrinsic meaning" (a term which you have used!) 
in areas of multifunctionality, eg Hithpael etc.

Thanks,
David Kummerow.




> 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.