Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

> I picked up this thread mid-way but think your analogy a bit flat. 
> Discourse does not 'build' a language as an engineer sets out to build a
> skyscraper.  The thing is there.  Our job is to figure out how it is
> built and what motivates its various features--features that may at first
> glance seem odd, out of place, excessively bizarre.  In looking over this
> 'skyscraper' (to try and work with the analogy), I'll examine the top AND
> the bottom...and the middle, exterior and interior.  By looking at the
> top I'll understand why the bottom was built the way it was.  By
> examining the bottom I will perhaps understand more of why the top turned
> out like it did.

Of course any analogy ends up being inadequate; however, the 
point is that when we look at a language with a view to 
understanding it, there needs to be a definite order and sequence 
to the investigation.  The question here is, should we be starting at 
the big and working down to the small, or starting at the foundation 
and working our way toward the bigger picture?

>  I will not, however, build anything since there's only a magnificent
> building before me.

But when we're talking about a language, there's no better way to 
understand how it's built than to try to build in it ourselves, or at 
least comprehend how the minds of the native speakers did the 
building.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.