Again, apologies if this posts twice, but John was experiencing difficulties posting.
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 > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: John Cook <[email protected]> >> Date: December 12, 2012, 11:13:47 AM EST >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re. More on verbs >> >> Dear Rolf, James, et al. >> >> My apologies if you feel offended. My remarks were never ad hominem, but of >> course in academia very many scholars have difficulty distinguishing ideas >> from their own identity. Ideas we should be able to call "silly" without >> getting accused of ad hominem attacks (BTW Merriam Webster defines silly as >> "exhibiting a lack of common sense or sound judgement." Some theories do >> indeed lack common sense (e.g., wrt Michel's synchronic theory: if wayyiqtol >> and yiqtol have drastically different meanings almost all the time, isn't it >> common sense to admit they are two different grams the are partially >> homonymous, even if their etymological distinction is rejected?) or sound >> judgment (e.g., see my JNES review of your book, Rolf, available here: >> http://ancienthebrewgrammar.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/cook-2010-jnes-revfuruli.pdf). >> >> Of course the irony that makes me chuckle is that your b-hebrew post is a >> response all wrapped up around "definitions" in response to my blog post >> pleading that we get BEYOND these questions! Come now, we must honestly >> admit that b-hebrew is known for its lack of periodic ad-hominem attacks and >> for getting stalled in discussions—I admit I'm a regular lurker but I >> refrain from posting for just such reasons. >> >> But as long as you insist on dancing around definitions, let me defend my >> use of special pleading. As you cite in the definition, the meaning includes >> "alleging a need to apply additional considerations." Or, to use a more >> respectable source, Merriam Webster defines it more succinctly as follows: >> "the allegation of special or new matter to offset the effect of matter >> pleaded by the opposite side and admitted, as distinguished from a direct >> denial of the matter pleaded." I've already linked to my JNES review of your >> work, and my point is amply made there: you acknowledge that better than 93% >> of wayyiqtol forms refer to past events, but you use the special pleading of >> pragmatics versus semantics (temporal location versus tense) to dismiss the >> common sense identification of wayyiqtol as encoding past tense. Admittedly >> it is important to distinguish pragmatics from semantics, but you apply the >> term pragmatics so unrealistically broadly as to include just about any >> knowledge of the real world to exclude some common sense semantic >> interpretation (just see the example of 1 Kings 6:1 in my review or my >> previous b-hebrew post on Gen 2:19. >> >> Similarly, your engage in special pleading when you claims that "it is not >> obvious that it [aspect] as the same nature" in different languages (see the >> full quote in the review). What does this mean when scholars are making >> immense strides in a wide variety of languages all around the world using >> the basic definitions that are found to be equally applicable across all >> languages (look at WALS online, Bybee et al.'s book, Dahl's work—there are >> hundreds upon hundreds of languages that have been successfully analyzed >> using the agreed upon definition of aspect). Your claim amounts to saying >> that ancient Hebrew speakers were simply incapable of speaking about certain >> types of events or events in certain ways (or else we have some retrojection >> of the idea of Holy Spirit Greek into Hebrew!). This idea (not you) is silly. >> >> I don't mean to diminish the contribution of Michel's study; it is very >> important, but it is also extremely crippled by this silly assumption that >> since wayyiqtol and yiqtol look so much alike they must be semantically >> related—this in the face of a plethora of data that say otherwise. On this >> point, the diachronics are a mere side-issue: they clearly don't exhibit the >> same meaning in the same text except in few and uncertain cases. (BTW I >> address wayyiqtol in poetry in the fourth chapter of my book where one can >> find the stark contrast of approach between myself an Michel; you, Rolf, >> will be especially pleased that my argument is largely built on attention to >> the distinctness and interaction between semantics and pragmatics!) >> >> John A. Cook >> http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:56:51 +0100 >> From: "Rolf" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] More on verbs >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <3ee0-50c82a80-23-1ae010a0@210425284> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
