Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Cognate languages - limitations

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Cognate languages - limitations
  • Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 15:17:56 +0300

On 9/5/05, Read, James C wrote:
> Imagine 2,000 years from now a group of 'scholars' that go about
> studying the now dead English language.

While this list is related to Hebrew only, it is obvious that you are
attempting to draw a parallel (note spelling) to analysis of Biblical
Hebrew. However, first of all, your example is contrived. You control
the two phrases that are compared via the two languages, as well as the
representation of these phrases in the evidence ("Having analysed the
data they see that the meaning of 'what bad manners' fits the context
well and apart from one or two difficult examples"). As Kevin Riley
noted, English and Italian are very distant cognate languages (somewhat
like Akkadian and Hebrew) as compared between English and Dutch
(like Ugaritic and Hebrew). But many Latin words were borrowed into
English as in this case. Another problem with your example is that it
suggests that the student is perfectly OK when he claims he need not
prove that the two newspaper examples he brought are "just an isolated
example of an idiom." This suggests the student was not following a very
sound methodology because if he was, he would have done this long
before the scholar asked him on the forum to do so.

However, what it does show is your perception of academic (again, note
spelling) ability and how the academy treats people. No one will fail a
degree because he insists that one particular phrase is analyzed wrong
and is willing to go out and perform an in-depth study of the use of the
phrase. Nor would an in depth study of such a phrase be thrown out by
scholarship or not published in serious scientific journals or publications.
Rather, if his methods are sloppy, if he refuses to acknowledge various
evidence, if he refuses even to read the articles and publications of those
who write the "bad manners" "conspiracy" theories, all of those would be
grounds for not accepting the study into a serious publication. If his
refusal to read articles and publications of opposing views is more
widespread than these two phrases he will also probably fail his courses.

You don't have to believe the earth revolves around the sun to study
astronomy. But you must be willing to read all the studies that claim the
earth is round or assume the earth is round or bring evidence to that end,
as well as be able to perform calculations and computations based on that
assumption. In fact, modern physics takes the position that neither view
is objectively correct but computations become much simpler with the
assumption that the earth revolves around the sun than vice versa. It's one
of the assumptions underlying the theory of relativity, which means it wasn't
even "proven" by this theory -- just assumed. But it was still published in
serious publications, because the methodology was sound.

By the way, the various consistent misspellings in your posts, of which
some examples were noted here but just in the post above there are
several more words that are problematic, give you a very bad impression
in themselves. Use a spell checker if you want a more favorable reception
amongst the academic community :-)

Yitzhak Sapir




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page