Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Bill,

I didn't say what you suggest because I already get what Rolf's on 
about. I have read his work. To me the terms are interchangeable, but 
they seem not to be for Rolf. That's fine, we can differ here. It's a 
matter of language, so I shall from now on use what he has actually 
used. So it's not that I need to let Rolf know that I didn't get it but 
that now I do, only that from now on to please him I shall choose to use 
his words. You know, I object to "uncancellable intrinsic meaning" AND 
"uncancellable semantics" -- not as labels, but as methodological 
assumption(s) in Rolf's work.

Did you read the quotations from his dissertation I provided? Do you 
think the terms are interchangeable?
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-March/031836.html

Have you noticed, though, that Rolf never concedes anything himself? 
Sometimes in the past I have conceded a point to him, sometimes 
apologised if I have misrepresented him. But he never does this himself. 
Just lately I apologised for misrepresenting him before I had read his 
dissertation. And then Rolf made much the same mistake with me saying here

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-March/031731.html

that I "*assume* that tense is a part of the Hebrew
verbal system." Note his emphasis. Now I pointed out to him that his 
assumption about me was just plain wrong - that previously I have held 
an aspectual position regarding the BH verbal system, so it is incorrect 
that I assume what he sates. I have never received an apology or 
acknowledgement of this from Rolf, but I am getting used to this from him.

Regards,
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                    (/'