Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>]

Peter wrote:-

>David, Yitzhak and I have identified several significant
>deficiencies in the work. I consider that we have not only a right but a
>duty to bring these deficiencies to public notice. Of course in doing so
>we allow Rolf to reply and, if he can, to argue that his detractors have
>misunderstood him. He is not obliged to do so. But if, as his approach
>often is, he simply restates his points without interacting properly
>with the criticisms, he is in danger of being discredited.

I'll accept that David has examined Rolf's work because he's read
it in its entirety. I can't recall whether Yitzhak has made that
claim.

I've only watched this debate from the sidelines, but it often
appears to me that the two sides (Rolf in one corner, everyone
else in the other) are often talking past each other. One only
needs to look at the many posts back and forth about things which
are ``uncancellable''. It seems to me that when Rolf says to someone
that they doesn't understand what he's talking about that they ought to
think that he might be right in his assertion that they don't
understand and make a renewed effort or greater effort to get
to grips with what is actually being claimed. Often this doesn't
appear to be the case. The claims by the opposition continue
along on the assumption that they understand perfectly well. Just watching
the debate from the stands I think Rolf is right on this point.
A lot of the objections being raised seem to me to be wide of
their mark, simply because the opposition doesn't know where
the mark is. To take an American analogy, a lot of the pitching
is towards first base and the pitcher is calling ``strike'' and
``batter out'' when the batter is actually off to the side at home
plate. Here's an example from exchange between Rolf of David Kummerow:-

Rolf:-

> I object to the label "uncancelable semantics" since this is not a term
> used in linguistics, and it may have connotations that prevents the
> reader from understanding my method. It may even give the reader the
> impression that I do the very opposite what is the case.

David:-

>OK, I'll drop the term in preference for your own "uncancellable
>intrinsic meaning". (I still think that this equates to "uncancellable
>semantics", but if you don't think so I'll stick to the longer version
>"uncancellable intrinsic meaning".)

Just looking at it, David did not say ``Ah ha! Now I get it.''
He said, ``Ok, I'll use your label.'' There's a huge difference
between the two. Unless there is a common understanding of
the terminology the debate is going to go nowhere.

Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'