Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Karl, has it occurred to you that perhaps there is more than one place named
"Umm al-Hawa" or that the name "Umm al-Hawa" being as it is a foreign name
could be written several different ways, or that you are not knowledgeable
enough in North Arabian inscriptions to be able to categorically claim that a
site is not a place where a North Arabian inscription is likely to be found?
Interestingly, after I directed you to a book that defined the
inscription's place
of discovery as "Harra desert" (a desert in northeastern Jordan rich in basalt
rock), you ignored it.  Have you not considered it odd that you are the only 
one
who has identified the script as "Proto-Canaanite" despite the fact that this
inscription was studied by many skilled scholars in Semitic scripts, and yet
you have admitted to having only limited knowledge of what Proto-Canaanite
looks like and even more limited knowledge of Safaitic (you once claimed that
this inscription was the primary readable inscription in Proto-Canaanite that
you have access to).

If you have a problem with the name "Historical Comparative Linguistics" take
it up with the scholars who name the study for what it is.  But the name 
refers
to a particular discipline with its methodology and you cannot
redefine what the
discipline is about just because you think the name better describes something
else of your own choosing.  Even if we found two inscriptions of two related
languages dated using some scientific method (carbon dating, etc) to the same
period of time, or even differing periods, the two could
linguistically describe any
of several possible relationships between languages, including one that 
suggests
the one dated earlier is actually more developed than the one dated
later, and the
only way to determine this is to analyze the way the languages are related.  
In
this case, however, the claims of the dating of the Pentateuch's authorship to
"hundreds of years before Amarna" is based solely on claims made within the
Pentateuch itself, so your identified "red herring" is actually a
perfectly valid
argument.  If you don't understand Historical/Comparative Linguistics,
or if you
read the name and make up something totally different instead of
trying to learn
what it is really about, and yet describe your idea of Historical/Comparative
Linguistics as if it is fact, then you are misinforming others.

I have previously shown you this web page (several times!).  Where does it
mention anything about the dating of inscriptions or texts in the languages?
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/PIE.html

The first book in its bibliography was also recently recommended by a
moderator of ANE-2.  It appears to be available in a university library in 
your
home town, so you should at least be able to read it inside a reading room in
the library.  So if you can't trust me on this topic, perhaps it is
best to read this
book.  Note: I didn't read this book.  I have no idea what it says.
It just seems
to have good recommendations.  The ANE-2 moderator, Bob Whiting, called it
"a little golden book."  To look up the book go to:
http://worldcat.org/oclc/2780886

The next to the last entry in Hubbard's essay probably refers to the following
essay or to an essay with very similar content:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/8.html
I don't think this one mentions that the dating of texts written in
some language
somehow determines the place of that language as related to other languages.

Yitzhak Sapir