Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a past event?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a past event?
  • Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:27:57 +0100

Hi David,

please don't bow out quite yet. I'm sure there is more you can give to this thread. While I am attracted to Rolf's study I also don't like discussing credentials. Logic should be the winning factor. So let's try to stay on that track.

What I would be interested in hearing from you is answers to the following. You keep picking at the assumption of uncancellable meaning as if the value of Rolf's study fell without this foundation. I don't really see this to be the case. While I am not sure whether hebrew verbs have or do not have uncancellable meaning what I am almost sure of is this: Rolf's study indicates that we should all take a fresh look at the hebrew verb system. I would like to invite you to challenge Rolf's study without making a deal of his assumption of uncancellable meaning. Choose a section of the tanakh and make a count of the unambigous temporal senses of the verbs in a section and show us if there is any major disagreement between your figures and Rolf's figures. Only then can we have any basis for objective consideration of which way we to be convinced.

James Christian

P.S. Regards uncancellable meaning. Personally, I don't believe such a concept exists in languages. Context can do anything. It is usage that dominates meaning. However, this does not mean that generalisations can not be made. Our brains learn by making generalisations. And it is this mechanism we use to create a grammar of our first language. We take examples as input, we generalise, we experiment with our generalisations and we make conclusions based on limited feedback.



Quoting 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.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page