Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> >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"),

Excessiveness is the most important difference between Hebrew (and, to large 
extent, other Semitic languages) and other languages. That difference is 
commonly ignored because most linguists lack background in logic. A 
descriptory system (like language) must be sufficient to describe the facts 
it applies to. The trick is to keep the system at the same time to a 
minimum. Difference between size of a system and hypothetical size of 
minimally sufficient system is excessiveness. For example, English is 
excessive: you can skip a few letters in "together", and still unambiguously 
reconstruct the word. Shumerian is excessive in its use of vowels. Hebrew 
practically lacks excessiveness. This is the most fascinating feature of the 
language. This is why I repeat that Hebrew could not appear naturally. 
Chances of natural development of complex non-excessive system are close to 
zero.

> 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.

hmm, I would say, that is an addict, but les us stick to Hebrew

> For example, some people assume that etymology is the strongest clue
> to word meaning.

Etymology is a strong clue to the original meaning, but not necessarily to 
the biblical one.

> 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.

Quantum physics do not explain all the events. Some, like quantum 
entanglement, violate our philosophical notions. No theory in natural 
sciences is expected to explain all known facts, just more than competing 
theories. Form does not have to "completely" determine meaning, nor could 
it. Suffice if paradigms generally susbstantially affect the meaning.

Vadim Cherny