From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Overview and comments on Furuli, A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:09:13 +1100
Hi Rolf,
[snip]
I object strongly to the claim that linguistic convention and the
intrinsic meaning of a verb form are interchangeable.
Best regards,
I actually did not say they are "interchangeable". Please do not put
words in my mouth. I drew attention to how the dissertation assumes that
that there is no *relationship* between linguistic convention and
semantic meaning. I stated, in contrast, that there is a relationship
between the two: that linguistic convention has strong bearing upon
meaning. Psycholinguistics has be demonstrating this again and again the
last twenty years or more. I can provide references if you want, let me
know.
Let me say that upon further reflection on your comments upon my
critical comments, I notice a strong tendency for you to avoid
interacting with the issues I raise. You even snip out the whole of my
first point! Now, I have done the same with some of your response to me,
but I just don't have the time or the energy to deal with it all, esp.
when you say that you view some of the matters that I would raise as "of
little importance", i.e. they will be a constructionally related
assessment which you have dismissed when I posted the like previously.
And there's all the other posts of mine the last month which you
neglected to address issues in. So I see no point. I just want you to
address the basic issue of methodology and the repercussions I have
drawn attention to. You can deal with all the other unanswered stuff as
you wish. (Interestingly, upon chasing up the link to the medical
journal Peter provided, I see that this is also the frustration of
people responding to you there on the issue of the Jehovah Witnesses'
position on blood. There seems to be the tendency from you to rarely
offer response to critique that deals with the issues raised outside of
reiterating your basic position.)
[snip]
>
> The areas you mention were not neglected, but they were viewed of little
> importance,
> and in the study the more important issues were stressed.
How is paragogic nun of little importance for you study? The basic
consensus has been that they are diagnostic of the long prefix verb.
How are the third-person suffix pronouns augmented with nun not
important? Again, the basic consensus has been that they are diagnostic
of the long prefix verb.
How are the distributions of qatal and yiqtol with "yesterday" and
"tomorrow" of little importance when they seem to be distributionally
the same as English?
Why aren't performatives seen to be important when the interaction of
performative semantics would seem to have bearing upon the meaning of
the verbal construction (see Anstey's dissertation, for example).
Why isn't the default anterior use of qatal investigated when this would
seem to me be strongly relevant?
Etc etc?
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
Regards,
David Kummerow.
Re: [b-hebrew] Overview and comments on Furuli, A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew
, (continued)