Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

David:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> 
wrote:
>
>
>
>> Using your standard above, except applying it to me and the way I have
>> heard and read the term, your examples are nonsense. Oxymoron. They do
>> not communicate. To the people around me, you are Humpty Dumpty, willy
>> nilly changing the meanings of words for your own purposes with no eye
>> towards communicating to the world.
>
> Karl, to me these examples do in fact communicate and it is clear what
> is meant in each use. It is not Humpty Dumpty English, but acceptable
> English in my part of the world.
>
That’s just the point, in your corner of the world it may be normal,
but to the rest of the world it’s nonsense, oxymoronic.

>>
>> The question then becomes, who is correct? Which use is the standard
>> use that people can refer to for effective communication? When
>> checking reference works from international sources, if they agreed
>> with you, then I would have to reconsider my understanding of the term
>> in order to communicate with the world at large. But they don’t.
>> Without exception, all the reference works I consulted give a meaning
>> that is consistent with what I hear, and at variance with yours.
>> Therefore, I can conclude that your data is non-standard, dialectal,
>> not only can be, but should be, ignored when dealing with standard
>> usage (possibly mentioned in a footnote).
>
> Sure it might be non-standard to you circles.

This is why I checked outside of my circles, to publishers in London,
New York, Chicago, San Francisco, etc., to see which meaning is found
outside of my circles. The result is that your use is unique, hence
dialectal, non-standard and therefore should be ignored as an outlier.
This is also why I call your approach solipsistic, as you are not
willing to accept data from outside your immediate experience.

> That still doesn't mean
> that we can't ask the question: if semantics is meaning which
> uncancellable across the uses of a lexeme etc. in a language or dialect,
> what is the semantics of "plod" in such a dialect?
>
This is where you are wrong. Dialectal, by definition, breaks the
rules of standard usage, including uncancellable meaning.

BTW, I noticed another dialectal usage in your response: you
consistently wrote “you” where standard English calls for “your”. This
is close enough that it is readily understood, unlike an oxymoron like
“quickly plod”.

> Really, this is just a case in point for me. I've raised numerous areas
> of language in my review where multifunctionality is the order of the
> day and where some so-called uncancellable meaning can not be discerned
> across the various uses. Of course, none of which Rolf has treated nor
> admits he's considered as part of my criticism of his approach.
>
Seeing as you misused the concepts above, how can I trust your
analysis that follows?

> …
>
> Again, I repeat: From you point of view. Yet the question still remains:
> for those who see semantic meaning as uncancellable meaning, which is
> the semantics of "plod" in such a non-standard dialect (to use your
> terms)? If uncancellable meaning is supposed to exist, please show the
> uncancellable meaning of "plod" across the examples we've been considering.
>
Dialectal semantic domain is a different semantic domain, not the same
as standard usage. You are demanding that different semantic domains
be treated as the same, which is nonsense.

>>
>> Because you apparently don’t understand what Rolf wrote about, your
>> criticism of Rolf’s work is flawed.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. "Plod" is just the case in point.

You obviously missed it in reference to “plod”, not recognizing that
dialectal semantic domain and the uncancellable meaning found within
it are not the same as standard usage semantic domain and the
uncancellable meaning found within it. So where else did you miss it?

[cut out discussion]

I have not studied these theories of epistemology and linguistics, so
I don’t know if you or Rolf is right in their applications. Bus seeing
as you are so wrong in the above counts against you here.
>
> Karl, all I've been doing here is interacting with the example Rolf gave
> and asked for me to disprove. Since it is an English example, I can
> really only approach it from my own familiarity and knowledge of the
> language.

That is solipsism. By definition. You need to go beyond your solipsism
in order to recognize whether or not your personal experience
represents the mainstream of usage, or if it is in fact dialectal and
non-standard.

> Again, I repeat: From you point of view. Yet the question
> still remains: for those who see semantic meaning as uncancellable
> meaning, which is the semantics of "plod" in such a non-standard dialect
> (to use your terms)? If uncancellable meaning is supposed to exist,
> please show the uncancellable meaning of "plod" across the examples
> we've been considering.
>
> But like I said before, these pages and pages of documentation I gave in
> my review where such uncancellable meaning cannot be discerned that
> cannot be put down to "dialectal experience and solipsism". That's not a
> fair claim, esp. as you seem to have not read the review as so are not
> in a position to say that my presentation there is only one of
> "dialectal experience and solipsism".
>
You have not presented your “pages and pages of documentation” on this
forum, rather what you have presented are merely dialectal experience
and solipsism. You admitted as much at the beginning of the upper
paragraph.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.

Your repeated use of “From you point of view.” makes me wonder if you
approach this question from a post-modern philosophical standpoint. If
so, then your critique of Rolf represents merely a personal opinion,
and not an objective scholarly work, a criticism of your approach
strengthened by your admission of solipsism in your understanding of
language.

Karl W. Randolph.