[b-hebrew] Proto-Semitic, was WAYYIQTOL
Karl Randolph
kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Mar 15 04:07:53 EST 2004
Peter:
If this is what Huxley really said, he was
more ignorant than I thought. And not below
making an ad homonym attack (even if the
bishop asked for it).
I learned the definition of science in
biology class where the textbook was
written by Dr. George Gaylord Simpson,
professor of biology and evolution at
Harvard (when he retired, Stephen Jay Gould
took his place). To distill his three page
definition to a paragraph, science can deal
only with phenomena which can be observed,
observed repeatedly. Any phenomena which
cannot be observed, or observed only once
but the observation cannot be repeated,
cannot be studied as a scientific study. In
a series of observations, scientists look
for patterns, which are stated as
hypothesis and after more testing (by
observations) can become theories. In
researching the library in physics,
chemistry and other biology texts, I found
none that contradicted this definition.
Evolution, as defined by the same
professor, is the theory that all life
developed by natural means over long
periods of time from simple, common
ancestors. Again, no textbook that I have
seen contradicts this definition.
Putting the two paragraphs together, we see
that evolution, by definition, cannot be
observed, therefore cannot be scientific.
When one looks at the evidences for
evolution, most, if not all, somewhere
depend on a presupposition that cannot be
observed, sometimes several, that
invalidate them as scientific evidences for
evolution.
Admitting that evolution is not a
scientific theory does not falsify it, it
merely acknowledges that it is a
metaphysical theory, which is a 50¢ word
for religious theory.
As for historical linguistics, the fossils
indicating the existence and development of
those languages are the surviving documents
written in those languages. Unfortunately,
those documents are often just skeletons,
even parts of skeletons, unable to flesh
out the richness the languages originally
had. Where is the skeleton of proto-
Semitic? By your own admission, it doesnt
exist. It is merely a conjecture, based on
a theory. To use conjecture based on theory
to have veto power over how one should
interpret the observed skeleton of a
historical language, sounds backwards to
me. Especially as long as there is the
possibility that the theory may be wrong.
My interpretation of the bones of Biblical
Hebrew are that the 22 letters represented
22 consonantal phonemes, each with one
sound that existed from Moses to the Galut
Babel. The consonantal sounds may have been
different than as we interpret the signs
left by the Masoretes. Just because a
cognate language may have had more phonemes
does not mean that Hebrew did. Absent
documentary evidence, there is no way to
prove, nor disprove, my interpretation.
Karl W. Randolph.
Ps: This is the last I hope to hear of
evolution on this mailing list.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> On 14/03/2004 05:58, Brian Roberts wrote:
> >
> > As there is no conclusive proof of the origins of Phoenician, Hebrew,
> > or Aramaic, I believe Karl's questions are not only valid, but should
> > be supported. If proto-Semitic is becoming a sacred cow without good
> > call, then it must be challenged.
> >
> > I believe that was Karl's point. He wasn't assuming Hebrew was the
> > original language, he was suggesting it. There is a tremendous
> > difference.
> >
> >
> Well put, Brian. Proto-Semitic is indeed a scholarly construct, and like
> all scholarly constructs it needs to be reviewed carefully by scholars.
> If Karl has done that kind of thorough review, based on a proper
> understanding of comparative Semitic linguistics and of the evidence for
> and against the generally accepted scholarly reconstruction, he is of
> course entitled to put forward an alternative theory. I trust that he is
> not assuming without good reason (even in the Bible taken very
> literally, I should point out) that the traditional theory is wrong and
> that the original language is Hebrew. If he is taking that position,
> then (since Karl mentions evolution) Huxley's (alleged) words to Bishop
> Wilberforce apply:
>
> "If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recording, it
> would rather be a /man/... who... plunges into scientific questions with
> which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by aimless
> rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real points
> at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious
> prejudice."
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list