Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] More on verbs

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Spinti <jspinti AT eisenbrauns.com>
  • To: null AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] More on verbs
  • Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:24:58 -0600

Rolf,

I think there is a misunderstanding here. When John uses "silly" he does not
mean stupid. There is more than one nuance to the word, which perhaps is lost
to a non-native speaker…but, I will let John reply himself.

I do know from conversations with him that he did not intend it to be an ad
hominem.

James
________________________________
James Spinti
E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 260-445-3118
Fax: 574-269-6788

On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Rolf wrote:

> Dear James,
>
> A basic principle of the discussions on b-hebrew is that we treat other
> persons and their views with respect. We can disagree with other members,
> even having strong disagreements. But we do not, or at least, we should
> not, use ad hominem attacks, implying that we KNOW and the others do not
> know, but they are stupid. John Cook does not meet this standard,
> particularly by using the word "silly," and by this implying that other
> scholars are stupid persons. He says:
>
> 1) "It is just silly to continue arguing over basic definitions that are
> widely agreed upon already, because it both wastes time and halts
> progress." But this is exactly the way science works! Scientific progress
> is caused by scholars who questions established "facts" and try to go new
> ways. Cook has certain definitions of aspect, and many others agree. I for
> one do not accept these definitions, but calling my approach "silly"
> (=stupid), that it "wastes time" and "halts progress" shows a lack of
> respect for me as a scholar.
>
> Cook says:
>
> 2) "I made just this point in my review of Furuli’s work, which he
> continues to defend on b-Hebrew by special pleading about the unique
> character of aspect in Hebrew." I challenge Cook to give a detailed
> description on b-hebrew of how I use "special pleading." Wickipedia gives
> the following definition:
>
> "Special pleading, also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the
> counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment,[1] is a form of
> spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable
> details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply
> additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations.
> Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an
> exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying
> the exemption.
>
> So I ask Cook: What counterevidence have I ignored? What unfavorable
> details have I excluded? Where do I cite something as an exemption to a
> general rule without justifying the exemption?
>
> Cook says:
>
> 3) "The silliness of the consciously synchronic approaches is enough to
> demonstrate that point (not Joosten, but e.g., Diethelm Michel)" Again a
> scholar is said to be stupid; this time it is D. Michel. I find the study
> of Michel to be an important contribution to the study of Hebrew verbs. He
> proceeds along new ways, and particularly his use of the Psalms to analyze
> the WAYYIQTOL form rather than using narratives, where the verb must have
> past reference, and we cannot know whether the past reference is pragmatic
> or semantic, is important. In my view, Cook has not succeeded in showing a
> DIACHRONIC grammaticalization process for the WAYYIQTOL form, which is a
> basic task of his work. Nevertheless, I find his dissertation to be a fine
> scholarly work.
>
> 4) According to Cook, A. Andrason of the University of Stellenbosch lacks
> "a clear grasp of Hebrew data." His approach is "naive and unhelpful," and
> "his theory remains at the theoretical level and is virtually useless for
> the philological task if decipering the biblical Hebrew text." And, there
> is a "fatal flaw in the flurry of publications from Alexander Andrason."
> Thus, Andrason is stupid as well, according to Cook.
>
> I do not find Cook's article to be "a nice overview," but rather a
> one-sided judgment of the works of other scholars without showing these
> scholars the respect they deserve.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Rolf Furuli
> Stavern
> Norway
>
>
>
>
> Tirsdag 11. Desember 2012 17:39 CET skrev James Spinti
> <jspinti AT eisenbrauns.com>:
>
>> John Cook has posted a nice overview of 10 years worth of his thinking
>> about the Hebrew verb and where do we go from here. Hint: agreeing on
>> definitions would be a good place to start…
>>
>> http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/hebrew-verb-theory/
>>
>> Let the arguments commence : )
>>
>> James
>> ________________________________
>> James Spinti
>> E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division
>> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
>> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
>> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
>> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
>> Phone: 260-445-3118
>> Fax: 574-269-6788
>>
>> _______________________________________________> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page