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: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
  • Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:26:13 +0100

On 26/03/2007 02:13, Bill Rea wrote:
...
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. ...

Bill, some of us have been examining Rolf's theories and discussing his linguistic model and his terminology for ten years now. We have repeatedly asked Rolf for explanations and clarifications of his terminology, and he has very often given them. If we don't understand what Rolf means by "uncancellable", it can only be because in the very many posts in which Rolf has explained his meaning he has been deceiving us about its meaning. But if its meaning is truly what Rolf says it is, this concept has no place in the description of biblical Hebrew, and probably none in linguistics at all.

...
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.'' ...

That would have been a lie because clearly David had fully understood Rolf's concepts long before that, it was just that Rolf objected to his terminology. This particular sub-issue was purely one of terminology.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page