Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

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/