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: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:22:33 +0100

Hi David,

Quoting 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 clearly not what Karl is saying at all. The more you go down this line the greater a distance you are putting between him and yourself.

Rolf made his statements regarding 'plod' based on one particular variant of the English language. Personally, I see that whether that variant is the 'standard' one or not as completely irrelevant. You have criticised Rolf's example of the uncancellable meaning of plod based on usage in another variant of the English language. Karl points out that the difference between a dialect and a cognate language is one of degree not of kind. The intimation here is that your argument is invalid because you are using a different language than the one used in Rolf's argument. In this I agree. If you wish to offer a valid critique of Rolf's analysis of 'plod' then you clearly need to be using the same snapshot of the same language. All you have proved to me is that the uncancellable meaning of 'plod' is different in the language you are analysing to that of 'plod' in the language that everyone else is analysing. i.e. you see it to refer to heavy steps rather than slow steps. You then claim that you do not see your definition as uncancellable but do not offer any examples from your dialect that prove your definition to be cancellable. This is bad academic practice on every conceivable level.

James Christian

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page