Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>]

>How many non-Semitic languages are oout there with rigid root system and no
>excessiveness? Even in Russian, aspect affixes more or less mandate the
>semantics.

Well, if you're looking for a language system with a root system (I
don't know what you mean by "no excessiveness"), how about Modern
Hebrew and Modern Arabaic?  This is why I keep trying to introduce
evidence from those langauges.

But we can even look at English.  An "alcoholic" is an addict.  A
"chocoholic," though clearly patterned on "alcoholic," in a fan, not
at addict.

More generally, to evaluate a theory of language, I think it's useful
to test the theory on a living language, because with living languages
it is easier to know if the theory is helpful.

For example, some people assume that etymology is the strongest clue
to word meaning.  By contrast, I look at English "host" and "hostile,"
for example, which though they come from the same root do not mean
even almost the same thing, and, based on evidence from living
languages, conclude that etymology is not clear evidence of what a
word means.  Then I refuse to give it much weight in trying to
decipher ancient languages.  Other people ignore (or don't know about)
the evidence from living languages and (wrongly, IMO) conclude that
etymology tells us what words mean in ancient languages.

Similarly, I look at modern languages, and note that there is no
language in which form completely determines meaning, and conclude
that it did not in ancient Hebrew, either.


-Joel Hoffman
 http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman