[b-hebrew] Ayin and Ghayin
yitzhaksapir at gmail.com
Mon Sep 26 01:51:17 EDT 2005
On 9/26/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> OK, I'll answer one question, if only to prevent the issue
> from coming up again (hopefully).
> [quoting me]
> > ...
> > And you didn't answer my question about why Ugaritic is
> > not "ancient Hebrew."
> No, not ever, no way, fergettaboutit, that dog don't hunt,
> never, etc.
> The reasons, which are outside the realm of this
> discussion board
The above question is well within the realm of the discussion
list, as far as I know. It is very much related to Biblical Hebrew
and has much to do with the way we interpret passages in
> and for good reason, you have à priori
> rejected and, if you would stop twisting and
> misrepresenting them, you would recognize as just as
> intellectually rigorous as your fundamentalism.
This type of argument, however, is not.
> It is not
> mere traditionalism as you opine, but a complete
> Weltanschauung that recognizes limits to tradition. You
> have started from a particular religious/philosophical
> belief which I and many others reject. Within your religious
> fundamentalism, the data from cognate languages is
> pretty convincing, but not outside your narrow religious
Many religious and traditional-believing Jews and peoples
of all faiths accept what I suggest. You only have to look at
this list to see that. So that what I suggest has nothing at
all to do with one's feelings and philosophy vis-a-vis
tradition. Also, what you suggest is not based in tradition.
Because tradition says that not only the consonantal text
but the entire vocalization was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
> > ` The`` main point of the question is
> > to force you to consider the different possibilities of
> > classification.
> > Yitzhak Sapir
> I plan to continue mentioning what I believe, but I won't
> push it. If you would stop proselytizing long enough, you
> will find that I and others who share my and similar beliefs
> are willing to tolerate your beliefs if you mention them on
> this forum. There's a difference between mentioning one's
> beliefs and proselytism: the one says "this is how I see it"
> while the other "to force you to consider" as in the above.
No. Asking you to look at evidence to see how you relate
your theory to that evidence is permissible. The next thing
after you learn Ugaritic and Aramaic would be for you to
suggest a sensible way by which the phonemes developed
that would account for the way the phonemes developed in
those languages and Hebrew. It doesn't have to be the
correct way or the only way. You simply suggest that what
I say is not the only way. So I want to see another specific
way that would explain all the data. No one ever concluded
Ugaritic and Aramaic were related to Hebrew by looking at
just a few words or set of words. They learned the language
and showed systematic relationships across the breadth
of many many words. That's also why it's not possible to
show that, say, Hebrew and English are related by pointing
to some few words that sound similar today. You suggested
your opinion and I asked you to stand by it. To stand by it,
you need to explain to me all the evidence from those
languages. Show me one way, with specifics, as to how
those phonemes developed. Simply saying you don't have
time to look at the evidence may work as an excuse, but it
won't allow you to stand by your assertions which go against
everything linguists, those same linguists you count on in other
cases to disqualify the vocalization of the Hebrew Bible, say. In
this argument, there's simply no excuse for not looking at
the evidence. Not even thinking I have narrow religious
I will be away for two weeks now.
More information about the b-hebrew