Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Spinti <jspinti AT eisenbrauns.com>]

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