Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

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.