Dear David:
I will be sure to include a thorough response to
Don's misguided and highly inaccurate comments, as part of my forthcoming
response to his last reply, prior to this one. His words,
Stafford writes, "There is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that
singular count nouns placed before a copulative verb convey ONLY the idea of
qualitativeness."
Now I would like Stafford (or anyone else) to produce the data on this one!
Where do I ever write/convey/infer such a thing? This premise is flatly
untrue and an example of a careless reading and uncritical caricature of my
position. I hold that a singular count noun can exude several semantic
nuances among which are I (indefinite), D (definite), D-Q
(definite-qualitative), I-Q (indefinite-qualitative) and Q (qualitative)."
are almost beyond belief. NOWHERE do I claim that Hartley makes such a claim
with respect to ALL singular PNs before the verb. He DOES, though, make such a claim
in reference to a number of texts, and he is wrongheaded in his analysis, to
barrow one of his ad hominem terms (among others) from his last reply. And it
is THAT claim that I am disputing. There are no examples that he can bring
forth to clearly demonstrate that any of the PNs he cites are Q only. Of
course, he must insist that this is so, for theological reasons.
Unfortunately, I have spent all of this time with someone who does not even
have a basic understanding of the arguments as I have given them, or he would
not have so badly mischaracterized the situation as he has here, and
elsewhere. His explanation for his misquotation and misuse of Luke 7:39 is
really something...
If you would, please, post this brief note to your site, as part of our
ongoing dialogue, so that my disputing of Hatrley's (mis)characterization of
the situation will be noted, as my larger response will not be ready for a
couple months, after some other, prior writing commitments are completed.
If anyone has any questions about Hartley's contentions that just cannot
wait, I am, as always, only an email away.
More later...
Best Regards,
Greg
Addendum
In his last response Hartley claims,
First, it should be noted that Hartley's sloppy presentation gives the
impression that I am the one who sent this second email, in January. That is
not true, regardless of whether he meant to indicate as much, or not.
Also, for someone (Hartley) whose writings are basically a shell of
mischaracterizations stuffed with ad hominem after ad hominem, I don't think
Don is in a position to complain about alleged attacks against him, from
anyone.
Greg
"False premise #1: I argue that all singular count nouns are Q.
"In January I was subsequently sent an e-mail which
clipped a discussion of his, including an extended portion of his recent
edition, concerning my lack of response and supposed misquotation of Luke
7:39. Among the predictable ad hominems he accuses me of several
inaccuracies."