Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] linguistics, was Re: Prov. 30:19

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] linguistics, was Re: Prov. 30:19
  • Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:32:57 -0500

Dear Peter:

The question is, which is more accurate, the source document, or the modern
reconstruction?

I have seen so many source “documents” in the form of written descriptions as
well as art and sculpture, that contradicts modern reconstructions that I
have become suspicious of modern reconstructions. I now consider modern
reconstructions no better than the philosophy and subject matter of the
person who made the reconstruction.

As for the historical development of the Hebrew language, I view the original
22 glyph alphabet as a source document. The message that that source document
gives in its historical setting is that Biblical Hebrew up to the Galut Babel
had 22 consonantal phonemes. That those same 22 characters in earlier forms
are the oldest alphabetic writing for Semitic languages (that I know of)
indicates again that all Semitic languages may originally have had only 22
consonantal phonemes.

That modern Semitic languages have more phonemes is evidence that phonemes
have been added to the original languages. I see too much evidence that
contradicts the theory that phonemes are only lost through convergence.

History is not bunk, but some historians write bunk.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>

<snip>

>Getting back onto subject, I have yet to see any convincing data that
indicates that the present is the key to the past. Let me emphasize again, the
philosophical difference is whether or not the present is the key to the past. I
say “No” and I think you say “Yes”.
> >
OK, you are probably right. But I don't see what other key there is to the past, unless that past is a purely speculative reconstruction based on almost no evidence. Maybe that's true of all reconstructions of the past. But if so, don't we have to resign ourselves to "history is bunk"?

>Karl W. Randolph.
>
> >

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page