Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Yitzhak,

On 26 May 2010 22:23, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:18 PM, James Christian wrote:
> > Yitzhak,
> > I'm sure that you are aware that whether Karl's reading is different to
> > 'everyone elses' is completely irrelevant to this discussion. This is not
> a
> > popularity contest. The question is whether Karl's reading is a
> reasonable
> > translation in light of the data. Even if it isn't your reading can
> easily
> > be explained by lazy yodh handling to save time in inscriptions. Just
> like
> > your gentilics. You still haven't answered either of in general terms
> about
> > what Judean Hebrew inscriptions you are talking about. I'm fairly sure
> that
> > given the data your analysis may come under similar scrutiny.
>
> I have chosen to reply now, because of your comment regarding Karl and
> the popularity contest.  It was important for me to put this straight.
>
> First of all, it is not my analysis.  My own personal theory has been
> withdrawn
> from the discussion for about a week now.  It only related to the spelling
> of
> ראש in Siloam.  What I am discussing now is agreed upon by practically all
> scholars.  That is to say, I am not aware of any scholar that supports the
> converse argument.  This is not to say that I've not read up on scholars
> on the subject.  As you can probably guess, I've read a wide variety of
> viewpoints.  This point that I am discussing is not one of disagreement.
>  So
> please stop representing it as "my theory."  It is not.  I wish it
> were.  I would
> be a great scholar with such a great following.  But it is old news.
>  Everyone
> knows about it.  Everyone seems to agree with it.
>
>
I don't care whose analysis it is. Translate your analysis to the analysis
you support. Please stop knitpicking and attempt to understand the simple
concepts presented to you. It doesn't do anything to advance the discussion
that we end up discussing these hair splitting contests rather than the
data.


> As for Karl's readings, I'm not saying this is a popularity contest.
> Karl will have
> the burden of proof to justify his reading.  However, I figured it
> would be a good
> idea to know how he reads them in their entirety before rebutting the
> reading
> he has proposed.
>
> Finally, I see that you have added "gentilic" to your list of
> buzz-words.  Please
> look up again what it means, please look up again what I said about it.
>  You
> are again making suggestions about my position which are the opposite of
> what I said.  I said that gentilics and duals are basically the only cases
> where
> we do see a -ym spelling in epigraphic orthography.  You suggested that
> I said that gentilics are the only case where the yodh is missing:
>
>
Yitzhak, I don't have a list of buzz words. I have a list of words which the
person I am discussing with seems to like to use. In an attempt to
communicate effectively with this person I adopt his version of the English
language in a vain attempt to minimize repercussive knitpicking. I find that
my strategy didn't work so I'll go back to my version of the English
language.

Please translate for 'missing yodhs in phrases describing nationalities'.


> > the reason I haven't responded to your response of a yodh suggestion is
> > because, to this very moment, I am still scratching my head in wonder as
> > to why you think your response is relevant to a practice of being lazy
> and
> > missing out the Yohds in gentilics.
>
> Besides the case that you are misrepresenting my position, you are also
> misrepresenting your response.  You did respond to my discussion of
> Lachish.
> You said I outright rejected it.  This is again a misrepresentation (to say
> the
> least).  I did not outright reject it.  I looked at relevant evidence
> and rejected
> it based on evidence.  It is perhaps more accurate to say that had you read
> up on the subject and on epigraphy before making your statement, you might
> not have made it at all.
>
>
I repeat, I still to this very day do not have the foggiest idea just why
you thought your reply was relevant. I suggested that lack of yodhs may be
explained by laziness. You then presented me with totally irrelevant data of
a completely different phenomenon. Understandably I am left scratching my
head in wonder as to how you could possibly believe this to have been a
relevant response. I really don't know how to reply to what you wrote.
Honestly.

James Christian


> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>