Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Um, well, each time the problems with your analysis are pointed out, you 
either a) don't respond or b) claim that you fail to understand. As 
such, I therefore take it that you are unable to deal with the problems 
with your theory.

Further, your theory as presented in your work is presented in 
isolation. That is, you do not situate it in relation to current 
linguistic theory. This is an important point, because your theory 
diverges significantly from linguistics as practiced by linguists. It 
would seem to me, therefore, that you simply avoid critiquing 
linguistics in a scholarly way because your theory is unable to do so. 
Which then leads to my two points above: where contact between your 
theories in relation to modern linguistics and traditional analyses of 
Hebrew is made on this forum and the incorrectness of your approach is 
pointed out, you either don't respond, claim ignorance, or simply 
restate your position without dealing with the problems raised with 
regards to your theory.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> David,
>
> You could not have disproved my theories for the simple reason that they 
> are not disprovable.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2009, at 3:35 PM, David Kummerow wrote:
>
> > Isaac,
> >
> > But note that such an opinion is based on your theories, and not on the 
> > linguistic reality of the language. Since your theories have already 
> > been disproved, means that your view that others' work is but "science 
> > fiction" is "science fiction" itself!
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Kummerow.