Rolf, I think there is a misunderstanding here. When John uses "silly" he does not mean stupid. There is more than one nuance to the word, which perhaps is lost to a non-native speaker…but, I will let John reply himself.
I do know from conversations with him that he did not intend it to be an ad hominem. James ________________________________ James Spinti E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com Phone: 260-445-3118 Fax: 574-269-6788 On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Rolf wrote: > Dear James, > > A basic principle of the discussions on b-hebrew is that we treat other > persons and their views with respect. We can disagree with other members, > even having strong disagreements. But we do not, or at least, we should not, > use ad hominem attacks, implying that we KNOW and the others do not know, > but they are stupid. John Cook does not meet this standard, particularly by > using the word "silly," and by this implying that other scholars are stupid > persons. He says: > > 1) "It is just silly to continue arguing over basic definitions that are > widely agreed upon already, because it both wastes time and halts progress." > But this is exactly the way science works! Scientific progress is caused by > scholars who questions established "facts" and try to go new ways. Cook has > certain definitions of aspect, and many others agree. I for one do not accept > these definitions, but calling my approach "silly" (=stupid), that it "wastes > time" and "halts progress" shows a lack of respect for me as a scholar. > > Cook says: > > 2) "I made just this point in my review of Furuli’s work, which he continues > to defend on b-Hebrew by special pleading about the unique character of > aspect in Hebrew." I challenge Cook to give a detailed description on > b-hebrew of how I use "special pleading." Wickipedia gives the following > definition: > > "Special pleading, also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the > counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment,[1] is a form of spurious > argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or > excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional > considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, > this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a > generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption. > > So I ask Cook: What counterevidence have I ignored? What unfavorable details > have I excluded? Where do I cite something as an exemption to a general rule > without justifying the exemption? > > Cook says: > > 3) "The silliness of the consciously synchronic approaches is enough to > demonstrate that point (not Joosten, but e.g., Diethelm Michel)" Again a > scholar is said to be stupid; this time it is D. Michel. I find the study of > Michel to be an important contribution to the study of Hebrew verbs. He > proceeds along new ways, and particularly his use of the Psalms to analyze > the WAYYIQTOL form rather than using narratives, where the verb must have > past reference, and we cannot know whether the past reference is pragmatic or > semantic, is important. In my view, Cook has not succeeded in showing a > DIACHRONIC grammaticalization process for the WAYYIQTOL form, which is a > basic task of his work. Nevertheless, I find his dissertation to be a fine > scholarly work. > > 4) According to Cook, A. Andrason of the University of Stellenbosch lacks "a > clear grasp of Hebrew data." His approach is "naive and unhelpful," and "his > theory remains at the theoretical level and is virtually useless for the > philological task if decipering the biblical Hebrew text." And, there is a > "fatal flaw in the flurry of publications from Alexander Andrason." Thus, > Andrason is stupid as well, according to Cook. > > I do not find Cook's article to be "a nice overview," but rather a one-sided > judgment of the works of other scholars without showing these scholars the > respect they deserve. > > > Best regards, > > > Rolf Furuli > Stavern > Norway > > > > > Tirsdag 11. Desember 2012 17:39 CET skrev James Spinti > <[email protected]>: > >> John Cook has posted a nice overview of 10 years worth of his thinking about >> the Hebrew verb and where do we go from here. Hint: agreeing on definitions >> would be a good place to start… >> >> http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/hebrew-verb-theory/ >> >> Let the arguments commence : ) >> >> James >> ________________________________ >> James Spinti >> E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division >> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years >> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies >> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com >> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com >> Phone: 260-445-3118 >> Fax: 574-269-6788 >> >> _______________________________________________> b-hebrew mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
