Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Karl,

So dialects don't have semantics, is that what you're saying? If they 
do, then please treat the example of "plod".

And why did you not attempt to state the uncancellable meaning of the 
examples of language (not dialect!) use that I additionally listed since 
you are getting so stuck with "plod"?

And these are just two examples, as there's hundreds and hundreds more 
in the works cited in my review of Rolf's thesis.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> David:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo at 
> hotmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >  > 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.
>  >
>  >
>  > And that's just the point I'm making, which you are simply refusing to
>  > answer.
>
> I did answer it. I just did not give the answer that you want.
>
>  >
>  > (I see you didn't ask an Australians, or Queenslanders, or rural
>  > Queenslanders.)
>  >
> I didn’t have access to them. Is that where your dialect comes from?
>
>  > But still, what is the semantics of "plod" in my dialect? Why are you
>  > dodging this question so fiercely?
>  >
> What it means in your dialect is irrelevant to standard English. Since
> this is a discussion about standard English, we must ignore your
> dialect. End of story.
>
> This is the answer that you don’t want to hear, and that you refuse to 
> accept.
>
>  >
>  > "You" instead of "your" is simply a typo due to hasty typing -- please
>  > don't make too much of it!
>  >
> A typo is once, maybe twice, but not consistently as you did.
>
>  >
>  > But within a dialectical domain, there must still be semantics, no? For
>  > me, this is my language -- my "dialect" of English is my language. And
>  > if the linguistic construct of "semantics" is appropriate for language,
>  > dialect or otherwise, then it is appropriate to study a dialect in and
>  > of itself and press it for its semantics. So considering my dialect in
>  > and of itself, what is the semantics of "plod"?
>
> I have no idea within your dialect, but that is irrelevant to a study
> of international standard English.
>
>  > This must be reconciled
>  > if equating semantics to uncancellable meaning is to be defended.
>
> No it doesn’t, because the semantics of dialect are not the same as
> those of the standard language.
>
> I have other things to do, so must be on my way. I have already given
> the same answers numerous times, and they are not flippant. If you
> want to continue down a path that is weird and off-beat, go ahead, I’m
> going elsewhere.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.