I think Rolf objects because to him "uncancellable semantics" is
tautologous -- for him, semantics is 100% uncancellable, so there is no
need to additionally supply "uncancellable". For him "semantics" =
"uncancellable intrinsic meaning".
assumption -- the assumption that semantics is uncancellable, so for me
since I don't hold to his view using "uncancellable semantics" in
reference to his view is fine. The principle of uncancellable intrinsic
meaning is basically assumed in his work. In his post in reply to this
one of yours, he provides some English examples which he takes as proof
of his position; however, Peter particularly and intermittently have
replied to him in the past that such a presentation of our language is a
misrepresentation to which Rolf chooses to not respond. No progress will
be made, I think, because Rolf seems unwilling to discuss these basic
issues of methodology which have profound effects upon his critique of
past scholarship and his own conclusions regarding the BH verbal system.
Karl seems to hold to some similar, though not identical, notion
to what an amateur like me would understand by uncancellable intrinsic
meaning. But Karl has said he doesn't know what to make of Rolf's
theory either.
Karl's approach to lexicography may perhaps be seen as analogous to
Rolf's work on the verbal system. Their approach assumes that there is
something uncancellable between every occurrence of a lexical item in
Karl's case and every occurrence of a verb form in Rolf's.
>Have you noticed, though, that Rolf never concedes anything himself?
Yes, and it is concerning to me. As Peter says this debate has been going
on for ten years or so. Mostly I've just watched. It appears to me to be
going nowhere. Some list members have suggested the apparent
misunderstanding is a religiously motivated behaviour. I tend to give
people the benefit of the doubt, so I'm currently of the opinion that the
misunderstanding is real.
Like I said, Rolf has been presented with evidence time and again with
seeming errors but chooses often not to reply. Often his reply restates
his position. The debate will continue to go nowhere if this remains the
case as it will not be able to get beyond the the issues which have been
raised but not dealt with satisfactorily. For me, I'm going to write a
longer publishable review of Rolf's work and then move on.
Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator
Regards,
David Kummerow.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.