Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

I'll reply a little more to make myself clearer.

I do not deny that your dissertation is scrupulous: both in terms of its
adopted methodology, as well as the application of that methodology.
What I am questioning is whether language is as "scrupulous" as your
methodology assumes, ie is real language as scrupulous as your
methodology in making "a scrupulous distinction between semantics and
pragmatics"?

So I agree that you have been scrupulous in the sense of "precision,
care, and exactness" in following your methodology. A definition from
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language even uses the
term "painstaking", which might also be applicable.

Like I said in my previous post, I leave it for others to decide from
the quotations from your dissertation if I have misrepresented you by
using the words "uncancellable semantics". I might change and use
"uncancellable intrinsic meaning", which you do use, if you prefer. They
means the same thing to me.

Regards,
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.