Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Semantics of paradigms

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
  • To: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Semantics of paradigms
  • Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:46:52 +0300



>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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page