Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> Ps: I’m not going to play David Kummerow’s game anymore.

Hi Karl,

I'm playing no games -- all I've been trying to do is press you to 
consistently the principal that semantics is uncancellable meaning can 
be maintained.

I've suggested that this cannot be the case with "plod" in English that 
I hear. You misconstrue what I say and don't answer the question that if 
"plod" has semantics, what is it's so-called uncancellable meaning?

Now, you dismissed it as non-standard use. But still the question 
remains: what is the semantics of "plod" in such a use? If this question 
cannot be answered, the theory of semantics as uncancellable meaning is 
called into question.

Then I presented a couple of examples from two different languages (not 
dialects or "non-standard" use!) which you asked for (!) where it is 
extremely difficult to discern an uncancellable meaning across usages. 
And you simply step out of the discussion at that point. So again, if 
semantics as uncancellable meaning cannot be demonstrated in these 
examples, the theory of semantics as uncancellable meaning is called 
into question. That's what I've been maintaining all along. That was the 
main point of my review. Both you and Rolf simply dodge these issues. I 
can only see the same old thing that always happens on this list with 
members who have non-standard views: evidence which challenges their 
view is disregarded and ignored. What I take from that in this case is 
that the refusal to treat actual language evidence and provide treatment 
of it is that it actually cannot be done -- which is why it hasn't been 
done -- and so the theory of semantics as uncancellable meaning is in 
reality linguistically indefensible.

Regards,
David Kummerow.