Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

The thing is I do understand the distinction -- I just don't agree with 
it, that's all! Both you and Nordlander have failed to deal 
substantively with the arguments against your position. The supposedly 
"cancellable meaning" of English "have" which you and Nordlander have 
suggested has been demonstrated to be highly questionable, at least to 
native speakers. Your presentation fell on "rocky places" because the 
methodological assumptions of the position are themselves shaky, seen by 
the lack of substantive arguments against the critique which still 
stands in the absence of any meaningful refutation.

Of course "uncancellable meaning can of course never be cancelled", as 
you suggest. But what if "uncancellable meaning" is actually fallacious? 
What then? It is for Nordlander analysis of "have"? And what of the BH 
verbal system...?

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> Dear David,
>
> I do not see any purpose in continuing this discussion, since you appear 
> not
> to understand Nordlander´s distinction between semantics and pragmatics. I
> quoted Nordlander in the first place for two reasons, 1) to show that other
> linguists also deal with the concept of "uncancellable meaning", and 2) to
> give an example of how other linguists distinguish between semantics and
> pragmatics. But both fell on "rocky places".
>
> BTW, uncancellable meaning can of course never be cancelled; for example,
> the phrasal verb "break through" can never loose its properties telicity 
> and
> dynamicity.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo