[b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress became inHebrew
Arnaud Fournet
fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr
Tue Aug 3 05:56:19 EDT 2010
Karl:
> 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
> few
> extent writings)? Yet time and again I read confident statements claiming
> certain things for Biblical Hebrew language “because proto-Semitic had
> that
> 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
> years.
***
These contradictions are indeed troublesome.
A.
***
>
> 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
> made.
> 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
> we
> 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?
Best
Arnaud Fournet
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list