Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Gday Bill,

Thanks for replying as what you say is helpful.



> David wrote:-
>
>
>  >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.
> [snip]
>  >You know, I object to "uncancellable intrinsic meaning" AND
>  >"uncancellable semantics" -- not as labels, but as methodological
>  >assumption(s) in Rolf's work.
> [snip]
>  >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
>
> Yes, I read those when you first posted them, but I've just reread
> your post again. I agree, to me (and most of the world) it *seems*
> like they are interchangable. I don't know why they aren't
> interchangable for Rolf. But that was my point, for reasons I
> don't understand they aren't interchangable. Unless someone
> figures out why they're not interchangable and can explain
> it to the rest of the world no progress will be made.

I think Rolf objects because to him "uncancellable semantics" is 
tautologous -- for him, semantics is 100% uncancellable, so there is no 
need to additionally supply "uncancellable". For him "semantics" = 
"uncancellable intrinsic meaning". My objection to this is just this 
assumption -- the assumption that semantics is uncancellable, so for me 
since I don't hold to his view using "uncancellable semantics" in 
reference to his view is fine. The principle of uncancellable intrinsic 
meaning is basically assumed in his work. In his post in reply to this 
one of yours, he provides some English examples which he takes as proof 
of his position; however, Peter particularly and intermittently have 
replied to him in the past that such a presentation of our language is a 
misrepresentation to which Rolf chooses to not respond. No progress will 
be made, I think, because Rolf seems unwilling to discuss these basic 
issues of methodology which have profound effects upon his critique of 
past scholarship and his own conclusions regarding the BH verbal system.


> Karl seems to hold to some similar, though not identical, notion
> to what an amateur like me would understand by uncancellable intrinsic
> meaning. But Karl has said he doesn't know what to make of Rolf's
> theory either.

Karl's approach to lexicography may perhaps be seen as analogous to 
Rolf's work on the verbal system. Their approach assumes that there is 
something uncancellable between every occurrence of a lexical item in 
Karl's case and every occurrence of a verb form in Rolf's.


>  >Have you noticed, though, that Rolf never concedes anything himself?
>
> Yes, and it is concerning to me. As Peter says this debate has been going
> on for ten years or so. Mostly I've just watched. It appears to me to be
> going nowhere. Some list members have suggested the apparent
> misunderstanding is a religiously motivated behaviour. I tend to give
> people the benefit of the doubt, so I'm currently of the opinion that the
> misunderstanding is real.

Like I said, Rolf has been presented with evidence time and again with 
seeming errors but chooses often not to reply. Often his reply restates 
his position. The debate will continue to go nowhere if this remains the 
case as it will not be able to get beyond the the issues which have been 
raised but not dealt with satisfactorily. For me, I'm going to write a 
longer publishable review of Rolf's work and then move on.


> 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

Regards,
David Kummerow.