Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
> Dear Yizhak,
>
> The onus of definition is on the one who uses a particular term. I
> have never used the terms "general action" and "specific action," but
> you have used them, so they should mean something to you. I do not
> find the terms in David Crystal's "Dictionary of Linguistics and
> Phonetics," so I challenge you to show that the terms are meaningful
> linguistic terms.

Dear Rolf,

I really think your posts today, taken together, speak for themselves.
I agree with you the onus of definition is on the one who uses a
particular term.  However, I was only using the terms you posed
in your question.  I do not have a dictionary of linguistics nor did
I use one to discern the meaning of the term in your question.  I
used basic knowledge of english, just like I did when I picked its
antonym ("general").  If my terms do not make sense to you, then
you should rephrase your question.  Why pose a question in this
particular phrasing if this particular phrasing makes no sense to
you?  Anyway, I was only trying to help by giving an answer.

However, the whole thing raises a different question for me, that I
hope you can answer.  Here you have, according to your first post
today, an analysis of all the 80,000 verbs in Classical Hebrew.
Why then of the whole 80,000 verbs, did you pick a particular one
for which it is clear that the textual history is complex, and which
may simply be a scribal error for wbnyw "and his sons"?

Yitzhak Sapir