Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

Now I’m the one who is ready to stop discussing this issue with you. 

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Karl,

 

I know you are trying hard Karl, but your arguments amount to no more than special pleading, based on your own idiosyncratic use of terms.

Until you provide a positive description of how the terms should be used, just repeating the mantra that I use terms in an idiosyncratic manner is not helpful. 

 

You say, "This whole section is invalidated because you didn’t take into account the differences between a complex lexeme, as I have repeatedly defined it to try to make sure of understandable communication, and simple lexemes in context."

 

And that's where you engage in special pleading.  You refer to a complex lexeme, "as I have repeatedly defined it."  But you simply can't do that.

And why not?

 

  You can't call one instance a complex lexeme and refuse to call another instance of the exact same phrase a complex lexeme as well.

Only by ignoring context can you make this claim.

 

  And you can't beg the question by referring to "an idiosyncratice use of the word 'strike' that is unique to the game of baseball."  It may have been idiosyncratic at one time; it is no longer, it is a tremendously popular, and no longer unique to baseball.

Give me one example of “strike” meaning that a person failed to try to hit something outside of baseball. That’s part of its meaning in baseball. If you use the term “strike out”, that immediately invalidates your claim. 

 

You say, "How is “disagree” the same as “denigrate” other than to say I think so-and-so’s dictionary is faulty because I think his methodology is faulty? And then to give the reasons? I view that as professional disagreement, not as personal attacks."

 

Of course, the problem you have here is that you think everyone's methodology is faulty except for your own, which you employ in your unpublished dictionary.

If one is satisfied with the methodology and results made by others, why go through the trouble to make one’s own? I know for a fact that I have done the type of Biblical Hebrew scholarship that no one else on this list has done, and that includes you, Jerry. Most of my work on my dictionary occurred after I’d already done more scholarship than you, and I’m continuing that scholarship.

If you had been watching, I periodically mention on this list that I am upgrading my dictionary and anyone who wants a copy can contact me to get a copy. You’ve had the opportunity to get a copy, but have not taken advantage of the offer. This is publication, albeit rather limited so far.

 

  That can hardly be referred to as a "professional disagreement."  You remind me of the soldier whose mother proudly bragged to her friend, "Every single soldier in that military parade was out of step except for my son."

 

As far as the whole wayyiqtol thing there are two things I need to note.

 

First, this is again one other example of how you are either are reading too fast, or choosing to ignore what the person with whom you are dialoguing has said.  I'll repeat it again, but I'll put in all capitals this time since you seem to be hard of reading:

 

I said, explicitly, "I would not argue that past tense is an inherent meaning of wayyiqtol."

And so what do you mean by “ Because, I would argue (and I realize I might raise the hackles of some people on the list) wayyiqtol in narrative does, in fact, mean past tense. … Nevertheless, I would maintain that, regardless of what it meant originally, or what it means elsewhere, in narrative, its meaning is indeed simple past tense”? 

 

And yet, when you reply, you say, " Just because the form is used in past tense narrative does not mean that the form itself is an indicator of past tense." Yes, Karl, I already said that.  How did you miss it?

Because it was between the two sentences I quote above.

The paragraph quoted from appears that you are trying to dance on both sides of the issue, or haven’t really thought it through. So I went with the opening and closing sentences. 

 

But what I then went on to argue is that even though wayyiqtol does not inherently mean past tense, it came to be so used in narrative.  And thus for the vast majority of cases when wayyiqtol occurs in narrative, it means past tense.

Define your terms. What does “means past tense” signify? These idiosyncratic uses confuse rather than clarify. It sounds like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

In English the “-d” or “-ed” suffix on regular verbs make those verbs signify past tense, hence that suffix means past tense. Is that what you intend in the above sentence?

 

  If I had a class of Hebrew students, and I gave them an exam in which I gave them 100 wayyiqtols, taken representatively and proportionately from the different genres of the Hebrew Bible, and they translated every single wayyiqtol as a past tense, they would all score somewhere between 90 and 100 on the exam, and my dean would get upset with me for giving out too many "A"s  in my class.  Indeed, I do tell my Hebrew students that in narrative, wayyiqtol, for all practical purposes, means past tense.  And I tell them that weqatal, for the most part, gets its tense or aspect from the leading verb, whether that verb is what has been traditionally called perfect, imperfect, or imperative.

Translation is not the same as internal language usage.

If they translate Proverbs 31:10–31, a section where all the verbs are present tense, imperfective aspect, and most are indicative mood as anything other than as such, then they have mistranslated that section. That’s a section that includes Qatals, Yiqtols and Wayyiqtols. And that’s just one section.

 

Karl, you can't call this "cherry picking or biased sample."

I would have to see the specific verses.

 

Finally, Karl, no one on this list, and certainly not I, is trying to say that we "can assign meanings to Hebrew terms irregardless of how those terms are used in other contexts."  The problem is that you are the one who refuses to recognize that what a word means in a particular context is, in fact, a valid meaning for that word.  And when millions of people understand that usage to be a meaning for that word, it is simply not fair to cavalierly dismiss that meaning as idiosyncratic.

You complain about me misrepresenting your position, then you turn around and misrepresent mine. 

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

Karl W. Randolph.