Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Hebrew and the Elements of Language

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Hebrew and the Elements of Language
  • Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:02:41 +0100

The following is a very short consideration of what the
real 'elements' of language are with consideration to
what they may be in Biblical Hebrew.

The following link, http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc ,
links to an article detailing a very small proportion
(university imposed word limits) of the work I have
done on research on cognitive development and its
implications for first language acquisition and its
computer simulation.

In summary, our language acquisition device (LAD) is
merely an extension of our cognitive system and the
things we say are merely the communication of cognitive
events e.g. Sarah went to the shop (something that can
be witnessed or imagined) Yhwh will destroy his enemies
(something that can be imagined and in the future
perhaps even witnessed by those that survive to see it)

It takes us so long to start producing our first words
because there is a whole bunch of cognitive
developments that needs to happen first in order for us
to have a database of cognitive events upon which to
hang meaning of words.

Nelson (1973) analysed the first 50 words produced by children and allocated
them into six categories along with their percentages:

1. Specific nominals - 14% - (names for unique objects, people or
animals)
2. General nominals - 51% - (names for classes of objects, people or
animals ‘ball’, ‘car’, ‘milk’, ‘doggie’, ‘girl’, ‘he’, ‘that’)
3. Action words - 13% - (describe or accompany actions ‘look’)
4. Modifiers - 9% - (refer to properties or qualities of things ‘small’,
‘big’, ‘pink’, ‘green’, ‘yours’, ‘mine’)
5. Personal-social words - 8% - (express child’s feelings ‘ow’,
‘please’, ‘want’, ‘no’, ‘yes’)
6. Function words - 4% - (have only a grammatical function ‘what’, ‘is’,
‘to’, ‘for’)

Children’s words are the same in every language: parents, brothers & sisters,
pets, toys, clothes and food (Schaffer, 2004).

Is it a coincidence that first words learned in every
language are predominantly labels for objects (animate
or inanimate)? I don't feel it is. My feelings are that
languages are object oriented in the sense that they
exist to communicate the interactions between objects
(what the subject is doing/going to do/has done to the
object). Adjectives are merely direct extensions of the
noun, describing the noun in finer detail. Verbs also
are extensions of the noun describing what the noun is
doing/is going to do/has done and in the case of
transitive verbs the verb is joining nouns together by
their relationship of the action of the subject/s on
the object/s. The adverb is merely an extension of the
verb describing in more detail the nuances of the
interaction between the subjects and objects (slowly,
quickly, harshly etc.) Prepositions largely proceed the
location of the interaction (on the table,
in the street, under the chair) and in many languages
are reduced to a mere locative case. And so, languages
can largely be reduced into objects (with their
descriptive adjectives, descriptions of their actions
(verbs + adverbs) and their locations (prepositions +
locations). These objects can further be reduced into
our cognitive experiences of the behaviour and
attributes of those objects and so the theory I
propose for the elements of language (including Hebrew)
are basically objects (along with their descriptions,
descriptions of actions and descriptions of locations).

Using these elements we can make combinations to make
more complex concepts. Take for example the concepts of
'ash' and 'tray' which we all subjectively understand
according to our own individual experiences with
objects we consider to be 'ash' and objects we consider
to be 'tray'. Combining these concepts we can coin the
term 'ashtray' and envision a tray for collecting ash.
Our individual understanding of 'ashtray' will be
moulded and shaped by our individual cognitive
experiences with objects we consider to be 'ashtrays'
and we hope that by coincidence of having similar
cognitive experiences that when I talk about ashtrays
your cognitive understanding of an 'ashtray' coincides
enough with my cognitive understanding of an 'ashtray'
such that we can communicate by a commonly understood
protocol.

According to this cognitively based theory of elements
of language I would suggest that the fundamental
elements of the Hebrew language can be found by
making note of the most common names of objects to be
found in the first column of my n-gram frequency tables
of the Aleppo Codex which can be found here:

http://www.lamie.org/hebrew/frequency.php

A quick scan of this first column shows that the most
fundamental elements of the Hebrew language are Yhwh,
Isreal, [the] sons of [Isreal], [the] king [of Isreal]
etc.

Any thoughts?

James Christian Read
BSc Computer Science
thesis1: concept driven machine translation using the Aleppo codex
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew (thesis1 and resources)
thesis2: language acquisition simulation
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc (thesis2)


















































































































0a
Any thoughts?

James Christian Read
BSc Computer Science
thesis1: concept driven machine translation using the Aleppo codex
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew (thesis1 and resources)
thesis2:





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page