fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr
Mon Dec 20 04:47:42 EST 2010
From: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath at gmail.com>
> theology can attach to all things.
> in so far as you can divorce theology from any thing, however, so can i.
> i suggested hebrew was a time based language. you contested that
This conclusion has already been challenged in the past, but without any
I'm still waiting for any evidence.
> i responded with comments describing our universe as one consisting of
> dimensions of space and one of time. I then compared it to another
> universe that possesses not those dimensions. that's not theology. that's
> just discussion of different universes.
Actually it can also be different theories about the same universe.
> linguistics includes the meaning of words.
I'd rather say: no, it doesn't.
Semantics is vaster than linguistics, and I tend to think that they are
better kept at a short distance of each other.
> my comments on the
> inapplicability of the hebrew language word meanings to any universe other
> than a time based universe, represent linguistics, not theology.
I don't think it's linguistics,
sounds more like a kind of logicist prejudice.
Linguistics usually only badly conforms to logics.
Certainly a bit superficial.
>> On 12/19/10, fred burlingame <tensorpath at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The structure of aramaic, and cousin biblical hebrew, is designed for
>> > use
>> > our four dimensional world of space//time; a world of physicality
>> > and constant change. The language structure is not equipped to
>> > in some other dimensional universe, bereft of space & time. The
>> > suite results from & speaks to our material world.
>> > hence, when isaiah speaks of ארץ and שמים and ימות and ימים ; and when
>> > daniel talks of מלכו , that language represents a language of four
>> > dimensional space/time; not some other dimensional universe. "land;"
>> > "sky;" "die" and "day" imply boundaries; boundaries of space;
>> > boundaries
>> > change; boundaries of time. These words are incompetent to express a
>> > a universe, where nothing changes and nothing is possessed of
>> > in other words the absence of space/time.
>> > and if aramaic and hebrew verbs incompetent to express completed
>> > action,
>> > then everyone in the masoretic text both alive and dead,
>> > simultaneously, today.
(1)To have words for time and death, or a wide array of words with "death"
semantemes like kill, slay, decease, etc. or (2) That the speakers
understand what a boundary is has nothing to do with (3) to have tenses or
aspects which express completed action.
The reasoning is clearly false.
More information about the b-hebrew