Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:51:19 +1000


Hi Karl,


David:

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Karl,
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> If you had been listening, you would have heard that your dialectal
>> use is valid but only for within your dialect.
>
> So semantics as uncancellable meaning is invalid as a principal within a
> dialect, but not so within a "standard language"?

Is this a question showing great ignorance of linguistic principles,
or one that is snide and sneering?

No, it's definitely one that I do not hold to and I would strongly contend against. But it's what you seem to mean when you said: "If you had been listening, you would have heard that your dialectal use is valid but only for within your dialect." That is, the the cancellable semantics of "plod" is only valid within my dialect, and so as such semantics as uncancellable meaning is only appropriate as an area of study and as a principle within a dialect.


> This is entirely
> arbitrary. To be convincing, you to demonstrate why this is a
> limitation, not just state it.
>
> So is the language of the Bible "standard" or a "dialect"?
>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, Karl. But it is you who is not dealing with actual language
> evidence which contradicts your position which I raised regarding Lyélé
> and Udihe.
>
I do not know those languages, I cannot verify nor falsify what you
claim about them. But seeing as you have made a practice of distorting
other statements on this list, I also cannot trust your description of
them. It’s that old principle, that if I find I cannot trust someone
on matters where I can check up on him, I also can’t trust him in
matters where I can’t check up on him.

Karl, it is not me doing the claiming, but linguists working with these languages. I provided the sources for you to check. There is no distortion and it's downright horrible that you would suggest that I would be academically so deceiving. Besides, why would I provide the references if this were the case?! You really say some mean things without backing up your statements. I would assert that can really only say this *because* you don't provide the evidence, because the evidence is really not there for you to provide.


> Regards,
> David Kummerow.

I have come to the conclusion that your actions are those of a classic
internet troll. You have been repeatedly told by different people that
Genesis 12:1 is not specific enough to prove or disprove your
argument, yet you keep hammering at it. That’s the action of a troll.
It looks as if you deliberately distort others’ statements (which is
not nice), as if to start arguments. That too is the action of a
troll. Your statements and questions often do not sound like those of
a serious scholar, rather those of an educated troll. The response I
hear is not to feed the troll.

Sorry Karl, I've been trying to weigh through this issue honestly and as academically sincere as I am able. It is not me that rejects evidence out-of-hand. I always try to follow up everything that has been said honestly and to the best of my ability. And what I get for this is the offensive claim that I'm some sort of "troll" (what on earth is a "classic internet troll"? Maybe I'm really naive, but I have no idea what you mean!). Again you make these claims without proof, that I distort peoples' arguments intentionally etc. That is simply not true. Whenever I have unintentionally (!) misrepresented someone on this list, I have always said sorry. Always.

All of these suggestions by you are really just offensive. This list is quite dysfunctional that it tolerates such things. Really, I've only been trying to progress our discussion of BH and how to approach it with a typological appreciation. That's all I've been doing over the years that I've been here. And all I get for it is being called a troll. That's really quite disheartening. This will now be my last post. I hope that I have been able to at least help some people in the past, and I hope that the list improves into the future.


Now you have heard why I plan not to respond to your arguments again.

Karl W. Randolph.


Sincerely,
David Kummerow.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page