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 10:28:14 +1100

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.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page