Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 20/11/2006 16:14, K Randolph wrote:
> Peter:
>
> On 11/20/06, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:
>   
> > On 20/11/2006 01:38, davidfentonism AT aim.com wrote:
> >     
> > > I think the notion that thought bears no direct relationship to language is 
> > > inaccurate. Hebrew thoughtforms are directly linked to its language units. 
> > > This is not always the case with greek because of its propensity for 
> > > abstractions. However, in Hebrew, thoughtforms/language is tied to instances 
> > > or things existing in reality (e.g., the idea of stiffneckedness like an ox).
> > >
> > >
> > >       
> > I will try to stick to matters of Hebrew language in replying here, and
> > avoid being distracted into comparative philosophy.
> >
> > I agree that "the notion that thought bears NO direct relationship to
> > language is inaccurate", with the emphasis which I have added. But the
> > strength and directness of that relationship has often been greatly
> > overstated.
> >
> >     
> I disagree.
>
> The basic grammar and language structure is not connected to any mode
> of thought. People use language to express their thoughts.
>
> Of course, available vocabulary (which includes idiomatic phrases)
> influences but does not predetermine how people think. A person who
> cannot express a concept using available vocabulary can use either a
> description of the concept (sufficient for one or two explanations),
> or coin a neologism or use an imported term,
>
> Of course, available vocabulary results from common usage. In the case
> of modes of thought, people can usually express themselves in an
> uncommon mode of thought by using vocabulary available in their
> language, but often by using uncommon frequencies of usages, terms and
> metaphors that carry the intended message. Notice, those differences
> result not from the structure of the language itself, but from how
> people use it.
>
> Because the authors of Tanakh used functional-activist-historical
> ("Hebrew") thought, it is mistakenly taken that the whole language,
> not just the usage, reflects that mode of thinking. But in the case of
> the New Testament, also written using functional-activist-historical
> thought, there are enough authors in Greek who used
> formal-repose-ahistorical ("Greek") thought showing that the
> difference was not the result of the language structure, but from
> individual purpose. If Tanakh were not the only book surviving from
> pre-Exile Hebrew usage, I would not be surprised if other, now lost,
> writings would have expressed formal-repose-ahistorical thinking.
>
>   
Karl, I agree with you, except in disagreeing with myself! This was more 
or less the point I was trying to make. But since you admit that 
"available vocabulary (which includes idiomatic phrases)
influences ... how people think", I don't see how you can insist that 
"thought bears NO direct relationship to language". However, we entirely 
agree that language does not predetermine how people think.



--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/