Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

David:

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:25 AM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> 
wrote:
> Hi Karl,
>
>> David:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:18 PM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo at
>> hotmail.com> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Hi Karl,
>>  >
>>  > I am unable to see how wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 is progressive, that is
>>  > that the end of the action is not included.
>>
>> That’s your problem and limitation. But because I have come to
>> disagree with it, I’m not prepared to go out and defend it.
>
> Well then, why expect me to either?
>
Who expects you to defend it? But when you admit that you don’t
understand it, how can you make even an educated criticism of it?

>>
>>  > As far as I can tell, God
>>  > said what he intended to say, nothing more nor less. It is pure
>>  > conjecture to say that God was interrupted in what he was saying here,
>>  > since there is nothing indicating this in the context (close up view
>>  > means end point not included). Hence a perfective speech event. That's
>>  > the same with the majority of speech acts, especially divine speech
>>  > acts. (Alternatively, if we want to go with Rolf and have imperfective
>>  > aspect as resultative, it is difficult to see the verb here as
>>  > resultative, either.)
>>  >
>>  > As per dialect, you consistently avoid the issue that a dialect is still
>>  > a linguistic system.
>>
>> If you had been listening to me, you would have heard just the
>> opposite: that because a dialect is a linguistic system, it is to be
>> taken in the same manner as a cognate language to compare to the
>> standard, not as a proof against a standard usage.
>
> So that means that dialect language evidence must always be treated in
> reference to the "standard language". Practically though, no "dialect
> speaker" generally makes reference to the "standard language" so as to
> subvert it etc. They just use the language they use, ie it is a system
> which can be analysed as such. And so in this way, "plod" in my examples
> still have validity.
>
If you had been listening, you would have heard that your dialectal
use is valid but only for within your dialect.

>>
>>  > What's the speech community which makes up
>>  > "international, standard English", by the way?
>>
>> This question shows ignorance. I already addressed that in a previous
>> message.
>
> Yes, but it wasn't convincing. How do we know that what is represented
> in dictionaries is in fact the "standard language" and not a) the
> compilers dialect; or b) a generalisation over various dialects. If b),
> why was my English dialect seemingly not represented for "plod",
> although I note that Yitzhak already pointed out that one dictionary
> entry already listed the use which I'm familiar with and which you dispute.
>
>>
>>  > They certainly must have
>>  > one superior language, semantically speaking! We "dialect speakers" can
>>  > be made out as if we don't have a system of language and communicate
>>  > only with linguistic oddities having only comic value for those who look
>>  > down on us with their wholly sense-making "mother tongue".
>>  >
>> This is foolish babble in view of the above.
>
> Again, you produce no evidence, only rhetoric.
>
Look at your paragraph as you originally wrote it: it started with a
false premise because you did not listen, then it descended to a
snide, sneering comment that was completely off the wall because it
was based on that false premise.

>>
>>  > But since you were so hung up on an example from a specific dialect, I
>>  > presented additional language examples that cannot be relegated to
>>  > dialect. But here you just avoid them.
>>  >
>> You accuse too quickly, accusing of avoiding when others see it as
>> merely not addressing an irrelevancy or that the question has already
>> been addressed elsewhere, so no need to repeat oneself.
>
Accusing too quickly is not nice.

> See other email.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.

Karl W. Randolph.