Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

See below:


> Dear David,
>
> I see that you admit that you have misrepresented
> me and are sorry that“ that is fine. I also see
> that you do not want to tell us what your
> academic background is.

Well, if you really insist.

My PhD has taken longer than I anticipated to complete due to two kids 
begin born, work, etc. I still have two half chapters to write, about a 
month's work when I get to it (mostly likely I can only get that time 
off from work at the beginning of next year). I've taught BH at 
undergraduate and postgraduate levels in Sydney for three years, have 
worked as a research assistant, and now have another research assistant 
position helping research for a BH grammar. I have an article on BH 
verbs which appeared in KUSATU.

Now, will you also admit that you have also previously misrepresented me:

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-March/031898.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-March/031733.html

>  >Hi Rolf,
>  >
>  >See below:
>  >
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>  Dear David,
>  >>
>  >>  This was just a sweeping statement of yours without any documentation.
>  >>   From our previous discussions it appears that you and I  understand
>  >>  fundamental linguistic concepts completely different and live in two
>  >>  different linguistic worlds. So I see no reason for a discussion of
>  >>  Hebrew verbs between you and me.
>  >
>  >The documentation is on this very list. Here's an but one example:
>  >
>  >https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-April/032068.html
>  >https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-April/032070.html
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-April/032069.html
>
> RF:
>
> Here you refer to yourself, and that is hardly
> any documentation that my reviews  regarding
> YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL "repeatedly" have been shown
> to be wrong on this list. I invite the
> list-members to look at the references above
> themselves. Moreover, in this exchange between
> you and me that you refer to, I referred to a
> Swedish linguist by the name Norlander, and you
> also say that you disagree with him. I showed
> your arguments to Norlander, and he said that you
> evidently lacked fundamental linguistic
> knowledge. These three refrences say nothing
> about the issue, YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL.

As requested, I refered to a post which documents where you have failed 
to provide answers in critique of your position. But you misrepresent 
me: my initial post was more general and not limited to yiqtol and 
wayyiqtol. We discussed Norlander's position here on the list. Peter 
Kirk is a trained linguist, not lacking in linguistic knowledge, so 
Norlander's arguement doesn't cut it at that basic level. Moreover, 
every native English speaker who interacted at the time said he was 
wrong, not just me. So the example you gave in support of your 
contention regarding the existence of "uncancellable meaning" was found 
at that time to be in error.

Just a couple more examples: there's posts by Peter Kirk dealing with 
issues of the different morphology of long and short yiqtol which remain 
untreated as well. Also, I'm reasonably sure that I raised issues 
regarding the distribution of third-person pronominal suffixes augmented 
with nun which were untreated by you.

>  >  >
>  >>  You have also in other forums made sweeping statements, as in your
>  >>  review of my doctoral dissertation in "Journal of Asia Adventist
>  >>  Seminary".  About 18 months ago, Yitzhak Sapir raised some questions
>  >>  about the quality of my dissertation and asked if there were any peer
>  >>  reviews. Questions regarding your review should therefore be relevant
>  >>  for b-hebrew, both because of this and because of your claim in your
>  >>  last E-mail that the conclusions of my dissertation regarding 
> YIQTOL and
>  >>  WAYYIQTOL have repeatedly been shown to be wrong on this list.
>  >>
>  >>  I will only mention one  point that may illuminate the claim you 
> made in
>  >>  your last E-mail.  The most important error of your review is that you
>  >>  completely have misunderstood the basic parameters I use in my 
> analysis
>  >>  of Hebrew verbs, namely event time, reference time, and deictic 
> center.
>  >>  The definition of my "reference time" that you present is completely
>  >>  wrong, and is not found in the dissertation. And the same is true with
>  >>  your presentation of my "deictic center," where you misquote the
>  >>  dissertation, because you have not understood that my words refer to
>  >>  the  abstract term "deictic" and not to the parameter "deictic 
> center".
>  >>  Therefore, many of your arguments against my conclusions actually 
> hit a
>  >>  straw man; you cannot effectively argue against something that you 
> have
>  >>  not understood!
>  >
>  >Note that I do not have a problem with this methodology per se. It is
>  >only the rigid application of it which I have a problem with, ie the
>  >underlying assumption regarding the linguistic existence of
>  >"uncancellable meaning".
>  >
>  >I am sorry that I misrepresented you. What I found difficult in writing
>  >that paragraph was that you failed to give a plain definition of the
>  >concepts you were running with. I still find it intriguing that others
>  >who have used these very same linguistic concepts as yourself have
>  >produced vastly different results, eg Cook an aspectual one and Rogland
>  >and Goldfajn a tense one.
>
> RF:
>
> The fundamental parameters I used are the
> foundation for all the conclusions of verb
> meaning in all the chapters. And because you
> failed to understand the nature (definition) of
> these parameters, you could not fully understand
> the reasons for the conclusions drawn in each
> chapter as to the meaning of the verb forms. A
> balanced scientific approach for the evaluation
> of a chapter is first to understand the arguments
> of the author and their foundation, and then
> consider the strengths and weaknesses of the
> arguments and conclusions. But because you got
> the fundamentals wrong, you could not and did not
> do this. But your evaluation was based on your
> own views of Hebrew verbs, and, until I get
> evidence for the contrary, you have not worked
> extensively with Hebrew verbs and is not an
> expert in the field.

I do not have a problem with these linguistic parameters at all, only 
the inflexible implementation of them -- an implementation that is even 
so rigid that you had to redefine what perfective and imperfective 
aspect! The implementation is inflexible because you hold to the basic 
premise of "uncancellable meaning", a position that is so far 
unsubstantiated. My critique of your position relates solely to this, 
and so you'll notice that in the review it is this that you'll see again 
and again, not how you've used the parameters.

> Here you err  again! Neither Cook nor Rogland or
> Goldfajn used the same linguistic concepts as I.
> These concepts have never been applied to the
> sstudy of Hebrew verbs except in my dissertation.
> One reason why they reached different
> conclusions, as I see it, was that they did *not*
> use the same concepts as I did (see review of
> Rogland by J. Tropper ). But  I would like to say
> that even if Cook's conclusions are different
> from mine, his work has a high scientific quality.

Cook, Rogland, and Goldfajn all make use of the concepts reference time, 
event time, and deictic centre. Sure, the concepts may be refined by 
you. But there's still an element of subjectivity in dealing with the 
results of the application of the parameters because you have to 
redefine perfective and imperfective aspect, Cook sees traditional 
aspect, and Rogland and Goldfajn see tense.

>  >
>  >But note too that your own sweeping statement that "many of [my]
>  >arguments against [your] conclusions actually hit a straw man" is not
>  >valid. The bit where I may have misrepresented you is only a very minor
>  >part of my critique (one or two sentences at most), and all I am doing
>  >there is presenting an overview. The substantive part of my critique is
>  >regarding your contention on the existence of "uncancellable meaning"
>  >and how this is linguistically untenable. Your whole thesis is built
>  >upon this foundation and so therefore falls with it. You do not deal
>  >with this central issue, and even in your dissertation this position is
>  >simply assumed and never defended.
>
> RF:
>
> In my comments above I show that your
> misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my
> parameters is not a minor point. They have a
> domino-effect, and causes all your evaluation to
> be clouded, because you have not understood what
> the arguments are based upon.

Rolf, you misunderstand my critique. It is not given over to a critique 
of your parameters. It is a critique of the your inflexible search for 
so-called "uncancellable meaning" in the BH verbal system.

> I started this thread in order to discuss whether
> there was a semantic difference between YIQTOLs
> and WAYYIQTOLs with past reference, and if so,
> how this difference could be detected. So I will
> not say anything about uncancellable meaning- I
> will discuss uncancellable meaning and the Hebrew
> verb in a separate post.

OK.

>  >
>  >>
>  >>  At the beginning you say, "As will soon be apparent, I disagree with
>  >>  Furuli at almost every point." This is hardly a good setting for a 
> real
>  >>  peer review, which should be a balanced, scientific discussion. Your
>  >>  words suggest that what you have written rather is a one-sided or 
> biased
>  >>  discussion.
>  >
>  >My words suggest that there is a basic floor to your thesis, viz. that
>  >it has incorrectly assumed the linguistic existence of "uncancellable
>  >meaning", which has then lead to the results of the thesis which are
>  >questionable due to the shaky foundation.
>  >
>  >Actually, I started out reading your work with an open mind thinking
>  >that maybe you had put all the pieces of the BH verbal system together.
>  >But the more I read, the more I saw that your results were directly
>  >related to the basic premise regarding the existence of "uncancellable
>  >meaning". It is therefore a real review which argues that this basic
>  >assumption is linguistically untenable.
>  >
>  >>  Moreover, a peer review of a Ph.D dissertation should be
>  >>  made by a peer, by one who both have a Ph.D and is an expert in the
>  >>  field. But your lack of understanding of fundamental linguistic 
> concepts
>  >>  and several other misunderstandings and misrepresentations lead me to
>  >>  wonder about your qualifications.
>  >
>  >>
>  >>  On "BibleWorks User Forum" your profile  is: "Research assistant,
>  >>  teaching Biblical Hebrew, Ph.D thesis on BH pronouns". I would like to
>  >>  ask about  the background you had when you wrote the review: Which
>  >>  grades in Hebrew and Semitics did you have? Had you at that time
>  >>  defended your doctoral dissertation? Have you published any 
> articles or
>  >>  monographs dealing with Hebrew verbs or Semitic linguistics? How long
>  >>  have you taught Hebrew on the university level?
>  >
>  >Now isn't this a bit hoity-toity -- that only one who holds a PhD can
>  >question the lofty and above-reproach work of a fellow PhD-holder? Come
>  >on, the critique is as it stands. Either you can defend the basic
>  >assumption of the thesis regarding the existence of "uncancellable
>  >meaning" in the face of the evidence I presented against it, or you
>  >can't. Simple as that.
>
> RF:
>
> The conclusion I must draw is that you are a
> research assistant, you have not completed a
> Ph.D, and you have not published any articles or
> monographs on Hebrew verbs or Semitic
> linguistics. Therefore your review is not a peer
> review. Normally I do not ask for the credentials
> of people, but I look at their writings and
> evaluate their quality. But when the reviewer of
> a dissertation starts his long presentation by
> stating that he personally disagrees with almost
> everything, and thereby evaluate the work in
> relation to his own strong views, I think it is
> good to look for the credentials of the reviewer
> to find out whether  the reviewer is an expert in
> the field.

OK, so I outlined my "credentials" at the start of this post. So does 
this change anything, or change anything that I've written? Really, this 
holier-than-thou academic superciliousness is distasteful and offensive. 
I thus bow out of this thread.

>  >
>  >
>  >>
>  >>  For the record, there are two other reviews of my dissertation that 
> are
>  >>  diametrically different from  Kummerow's review: "Hebrew Studies" 48
>  >>  (2007) 359-62 by professor E. R Hayes, and The Society of Biblical
>  >>  Literature (http:/www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp) by professor John
>  >>  Kaltner.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>  Best regards,
>  >>
>  >>  Rolf Furuli
>  >>  University of Oslo
>  >>
>  >
>  >Regards,
>  >David Kummerow.
>  >_______________________________________________
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo

Regards,
David Kummerow.