Peter:
You have made the assertion that we need to consider
that (WLM in the future had a different meaning than when
it was used in the past. You have yet to demonstrate that
assertion. You have not provided a single shred of
evidence to support your assertion.
A time descriptor does not change its meaning from past
to future. "Five days" in the past, when used for the future,
does not suddenly become fifty days, it's still five days.
That is a fact which you want to deny.
(WLM in the past referred to a long time where at least
one end was not specified, often because it was unknown.
By extension, that was sometimes used for eternity, but
not always. You have yet to provide a reason that we
should consider it differently for the future.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
On 22/11/2005 14:11, Awohili AT aol.com wrote:
>
> I really think the point is settled, but not in Peter's favor, so
> he continues to jiggle with it. Lexicographers from long ago
> have legitimized "time indefinite" or "indefinite time" or
> "unbounded time" or whatever. To argue otherwise is to fly in
> the face of the facts. ...
>
Solomon, while I will not continue to discuss this with Karl, I will
continue to discuss it with you. You and some others have continued to
assert that `olam, in the future sense, can refer to an indefinite or
uncertain time in the future. But NONE OF YOU HAVE PROVIDED A SINGLE
SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR
ASSERTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - except for those
explicitly based on Christian theology. Those are the FACTS, which I am
supporting, not flying in the face of.
--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
--
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.