Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Isaac Fried's Theory (was Karl's lexicon)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaac Fried's Theory (was Karl's lexicon)
  • Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:06:00 -0400

James,

It appears to me that you are mixing up two distinct linguistic issues: (1) word formation (which is inherent), and (2) the use of language (which is invented). I am not interested in the latter, only in the former. Children don't invent roots.
What I am saying is very, very simple, and apparently because of this simplicity you overshoot it to land in strange territory. Let's be concrete. I like concreteness. Say you teach the Hebrew act [verb] $AMAR, 'guard'. Next you introduce to your students the augmented form $AMARNU, 'we guarded'. If you tell your students that $AMAR is now "inflected" and that the added NU is a "suffixed morpheme", then you are teaching them obtuse Indo-European grammar, but if you tell them that NU is ANU, 'we', and that $AMARNU = $AMAR-ANU, 'guard-we', then you teach them clear Hebrew grammar. Indo-European grammar is easy to teach since it requires no intellectual effort, just drill.
I am surprised that you are prepared to accept Steven Pinker's scientological fantasies as though they were God's word to Moses on mount Sinai, but keep asking me for a proof to something that is obviously true.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Aug 29, 2007, at 4:43 PM, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ wrote:


IF: James,

I am terribly sorry but what you are saying makes no sense to me. I
know that the fault could rest all with me. I may be improperly
hardwired, ignorant, or possibly not steeped deep enough in
"psycholinguistics". I don't know. A statement such as "the only
natural conclusion I can draw is that for your model to work it would
require the ancient Hebrews to have had a cognitive system not only
different from modern day humans but from primates and all other
living animals that have eyes and ears" is truly beyond me. Sorry, we
appear to inhabit different intellectual worlds.

JCR: Ok! I am beginning to realise that maybe I haven't
explained my objection to your model well enough. Let
me try again but if I fail this time please let me
know which parts I haven't explained well enough.

Language is combinatorial. That is to say we combine
words to make clauses. We combine clauses to make
sentences etc. etc.This is the appealing part of your
theory because it introduces a new level of combination
- elemental consonants to form meaningful roots.

There is no psycholinguistic problem to the observation
that we combine words to make sentences because we
have a cognitive system which is able to associate
words with objects, their properties and their actions.

There *is* a psycholinguistic problem with your model
because there is no plausible cognitive model which
would enable the brain of a human child to associate
the elements you suggest with consonants and therefore
be able to use them as a combinatorial basis.

Please be specific about the parts you don't understand
or take issue with in further replies.

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew - thesis1: concept driven machine translation using the Aleppo codex
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc - thesis2: language acquisition simulation

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
















































































































Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page