Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues

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] how scholars debate controversial issues
  • Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:13:11 +1000

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 (/'






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page