Hi Rolf,https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-April/032069.html
See below:
Dear David,
This was just a sweeping statement of yours without any documentation.
From our previous discussions it appears that you and I understand
fundamental linguistic concepts completely different and live in two
different linguistic worlds. So I see no reason for a discussion of
Hebrew verbs between you and me.
The documentation is on this very list. Here's an but one example:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-April/032068.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-April/032070.html
>
You have also in other forums made sweeping statements, as in your
review of my doctoral dissertation in "Journal of Asia Adventist
Seminary". About 18 months ago, Yitzhak Sapir raised some questions
about the quality of my dissertation and asked if there were any peer
reviews. Questions regarding your review should therefore be relevant
for b-hebrew, both because of this and because of your claim in your
last E-mail that the conclusions of my dissertation regarding YIQTOL and
WAYYIQTOL have repeatedly been shown to be wrong on this list.
I will only mention one point that may illuminate the claim you made in
your last E-mail. The most important error of your review is that you
completely have misunderstood the basic parameters I use in my analysis
of Hebrew verbs, namely event time, reference time, and deictic center.
The definition of my "reference time" that you present is completely
wrong, and is not found in the dissertation. And the same is true with
your presentation of my "deictic center," where you misquote the
dissertation, because you have not understood that my words refer to
the abstract term "deictic" and not to the parameter "deictic center".
Therefore, many of your arguments against my conclusions actually hit a
straw man; you cannot effectively argue against something that you have
not understood!
Note that I do not have a problem with this methodology per se. It is
only the rigid application of it which I have a problem with, ie the
underlying assumption regarding the linguistic existence of
"uncancellable meaning".
I am sorry that I misrepresented you. What I found difficult in writing
that paragraph was that you failed to give a plain definition of the
concepts you were running with. I still find it intriguing that others
who have used these very same linguistic concepts as yourself have
produced vastly different results, eg Cook an aspectual one and Rogland
and Goldfajn a tense one.
But note too that your own sweeping statement that "many of [my]
arguments against [your] conclusions actually hit a straw man" is not
valid. The bit where I may have misrepresented you is only a very minor
part of my critique (one or two sentences at most), and all I am doing
there is presenting an overview. The substantive part of my critique is
regarding your contention on the existence of "uncancellable meaning"
and how this is linguistically untenable. Your whole thesis is built
upon this foundation and so therefore falls with it. You do not deal
with this central issue, and even in your dissertation this position is
simply assumed and never defended.
At the beginning you say, "As will soon be apparent, I disagree with
Furuli at almost every point." This is hardly a good setting for a real
peer review, which should be a balanced, scientific discussion. Your
words suggest that what you have written rather is a one-sided or biased
discussion.
My words suggest that there is a basic floor to your thesis, viz. that
it has incorrectly assumed the linguistic existence of "uncancellable
meaning", which has then lead to the results of the thesis which are
questionable due to the shaky foundation.
Actually, I started out reading your work with an open mind thinking
that maybe you had put all the pieces of the BH verbal system together.
But the more I read, the more I saw that your results were directly
related to the basic premise regarding the existence of "uncancellable
meaning". It is therefore a real review which argues that this basic
assumption is linguistically untenable.
Moreover, a peer review of a Ph.D dissertation should be
made by a peer, by one who both have a Ph.D and is an expert in the
field. But your lack of understanding of fundamental linguistic concepts
and several other misunderstandings and misrepresentations lead me to
wonder about your qualifications.
On "BibleWorks User Forum" your profile is: "Research assistant,
teaching Biblical Hebrew, Ph.D thesis on BH pronouns". I would like to
ask about the background you had when you wrote the review: Which
grades in Hebrew and Semitics did you have? Had you at that time
defended your doctoral dissertation? Have you published any articles or
monographs dealing with Hebrew verbs or Semitic linguistics? How long
have you taught Hebrew on the university level?
Now isn't this a bit hoity-toity -- that only one who holds a PhD can
question the lofty and above-reproach work of a fellow PhD-holder? Come
on, the critique is as it stands. Either you can defend the basic
assumption of the thesis regarding the existence of "uncancellable
meaning" in the face of the evidence I presented against it, or you
can't. Simple as that.
For the record, there are two other reviews of my dissertation that are
diametrically different from Kummerow's review: "Hebrew Studies" 48
(2007) 359-62 by professor E. R Hayes, and The Society of Biblical
Literature (http:/www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp) by professor John
Kaltner.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
Regards,
David Kummerow.
_______________________________________________
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.