[b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress became inHebrew
fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr
Tue Aug 3 05:56:19 EDT 2010
> That’s just my point! What does this theorized proto-language have to do
> with the reality of what we can observe in Biblical Hebrew (Tanakh and a
> extent writings)? Yet time and again I read confident statements claiming
> certain things for Biblical Hebrew language “because proto-Semitic had
> certain feature.” Did it? How does the statement’s author know? This is
> especially relevant when I think the surviving observable evidence
> contradicts those claims. There are many such claims I have seen over the
These contradictions are indeed troublesome.
> Because we can be sure about only that which we can observe. All else is
> speculation. And if it is based on models, models can be tweaked to say
> whatever the modelmaker wants to say.
> Irrelevant. This is not religion, it is linguistics.
> Science is limited to the physical universe where observations can be
> Linguistics is the scientific study of languages, which can be observed.
> Dead languages (i.e. no longer spoken as a native tongue), like Biblical
> Hebrew, can be studied only in so far as they have been written down, and
> can analyze those writings.
> Karl W. Randolph.
That's an interesting point.
In a previous mail, you discussed the *grammatical* structure of a proverb.
How do you *observe* grammar and syntactical connections and relationships?
IMHO only words and sounds can be observed in the ultra-empirical approach
that you seem to defend, grammar and semantics are mental operations, or
what else are they?
How do you observe these mental operations?
More information about the b-hebrew