Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew
  • Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:22:24 +1100

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.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page