Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Paul Zellmer" <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com>]

We have already discussed the fact that the list info was not written as a
legal document.  And, as for your "relevant" statement, you call out that
fact that you omitted the qualifier "one of the" in your original question.
Were you purposely trying to make the statement more likely to be objected
to?  Anyway, it still works out that you were trying to lead us into an
analysis of an analysis, not an analysis of the Hebrew language or
literature.  As for the ad hominem attack, well, I consider the source.

 

What does the purpose of the rabbinical academies have to do with the study
of biblical Hebrew?  The list still exists to examine the document, not the
authors or the modifiers.

 

Paul Zellmer

 

From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:00 PM
To: Paul Zellmer
Cc: B-Hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] greatest achievment [sic] of all

 

a. You will find the announced purpose of this forum at the top of the first
page of this link.

 

http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

 

 

b. You will find the statement relevant to this forum purpose on page 25 of
the link below, last paragraph.

 

 http://lc.bfbs.org.uk/e107_files/downloads/masoretes.pdf

 

If you cannot see that the purpose of "a" = the purpose of "b," all I can
say ... there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

The rabbinical academies did not expend countless hours and huge sums of
money in order to facilitate some future, alien language translation. The
document was created for consumers of the hebrew language, not alien
language textual critics, attempting translation.

 

regards,

 

fred burlingame 

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

Fred,

 

I said nothing about the import of punctuation relative to letters.  I only
said that the question about the relative greatness of the addition of such
by the Masoretes when compared to all other achievements in the fields of
literature and linguistics is textual criticism, not Hebrew language study.
This is especially true since you, in this second post, claim something that
the writers of the overview document never made, that they concluded that
"punctuation marks enjoy identity of import with letters," striving to make
an analysis of their supposed conclusions the focus of this proposed thread.
There are lists devoted to such areas of discussion.

 

So please explain, what are the grounds for your disagreement?

 

Paul Zellmer