Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Bekins <pbekins AT fuse.net>]

Karl,

>>Slight correction. Though they are rare, there are a
>>few examples of the masc. pl. noun marker lacking the
>>medial Yod. I don't remember off the top of my head
>>where they are found, but I remember the first time
>>I ran across one while reading the unpointed text, it
>>added a couple of lines to my forehead.

I was very close to qualifying this with an "almost always", but I  
couldn't quite remember if there was an exception or not.

Peter Bekins
> From JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk  Wed Aug 29 15:44:04 2007
Return-Path: <JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mailhub3-out.anglia.ac.uk (mailhub3-out.anglia.ac.uk
        [193.63.55.26])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1999F4C02E
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:43:50 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from smtp1.cam.anglia.ac.uk ([193.63.55.9]:33506)
        by mailhub3.anglia.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
        (envelope-from <JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk>) id 1IQTS1-0006Wa-Qf
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:43:41 +0100
Received: from cam-netmail.netware.anglia.ac.uk ([194.83.45.141]:34665
        helo=student.anglia.ac.uk)
        by boswell.cam.anglia.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
        id 1IQTRw-0004Qo-PX
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:43:36 +0100
Received: from JCR128 [82.207.61.43] by student.anglia.ac.uk
        with NetMail ModWeb Module; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:43:32 +0100
From: "JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:43:32 +0100
X-Mailer: NetMail ModWeb Module
X-Sender: JCR128
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1188416612.8d2a0e40JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-ARU-MailFilter: message scanned
X-ARU-HELO: smtp1.cam.anglia.ac.uk
X-ARU-sender-host: smtp1.cam.anglia.ac.uk [193.63.55.9]:33506
X-ARU-MailScanner-Info: see http://www.anglia.ac.uk/mail-problems
X-ARU-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ARU-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4, required 6,
        autolearn=not spam, ARU_FROM_AC_UK -4.00)
X-ARU-MailScanner-From: jcr128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk
X-Spam-Flag: No
Subject: [b-hebrew]  Isaac Fried's Theory (was Karl's lexicon)
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:44:04 -0000

Hi Isaac,

IF: I repeat. You teach Hebrew as though it was an Indo-European language

JCR: I know you've pitched your whole theory on the=20
invalidity of Indo-European linguistics for analysis of=20
your theory but I repeat, this time with emphasis,=20
*there are many more languages and therefore linguistic=20
models with which you could compare your model for=20
corroborative evidence*.
=20
IF: of meaningless (word) patterns.

JCR: I don't view word which we associate with objects=20
and their actions as 'meaningless'. They are much less=20
meaningful out of context, I agree, but the
combinatorial quality of language makes them more=20
meaningful as the context grows. It was this=20
combinatorial quality of *all languages* (Indo-Euro or=20
otherwise) that made me consider your theory.

IF: By doing that you deny your student =20
the understanding of the inner logic of the language.

JCR: Your theory yet remains to be proved before your=20
statement can be taken remotely seriously. There are a=20
number of issues with your theory which you have not=20
yet demonstrated a willingness to address. I understand=20
how dear your work must be to you. It evidently took=20
you a long time. I am sure my work is open to all kinds=20
of criticisms which I am willing to take on board and=20
either defend (if there is noticeable fault in your=20
logic) or to rectify and improve my theories. Are you=20
willing to do the same? Or are you already at that=20
enlightened point where it is impossible to refine the=20
quality of your work?

IF: I clearly =20
see that you did not understand yet what I am saying.

JCR: I am aware that there were mistakes in my=20
understanding of your work. I was notified of one=20
important one, off list, by another member. But may I=20
make the observation that you made no attempt to=20
correct my misunderstanding? I am willing to stand=20
corrected. Are you willing to consider valid criticisms=20
of your model and at least attempt to address them?

IF: Of course I am not offended by your "analysis" of my work.

JCR: OK! I'm no psycholinguistic expert and I=20
definitely have a lot to learn. My ideas will no doubt=20
continue to mature as a result of research and=20
participation in discussions such as those on this=20
mailing list. But are you at least willing to=20
acknowledge any or all of the following:

i) Understanding is based on cognitive mechanisms.
ii) Research in cognition shows that objects, their=20
properties/states and their actions is the basis of=20
cognitive mechanisms in humans.
iii) The same can be said of all other animals with=20
eyes and ears.
iv) That the above facts present psycholinguistic=20
hurdles for your theory to be held valid by any serious=20
psycholinguist.

As I have said before, I am undecided about your=20
theory. As it stands you have managed (I take in good=20
faith as I don't have the time to check each and every=20
derivation for consistency) to formulate a consistent=20
model which *could* be true but has no other evidence=20
to support it. In light of the fact that we are lacking=20
direct linguistic evidence to test your model I used=20
the only alternative tools available to me to test your=20
model - psycholinguistics. As it stands, your model=20
fails and unless you are willing to make an effort to=20
research psycholinguistics and the cognitive mechanisms=20
of understanding and formulate a workable theory for=20
how your model could fit then the only natural=20
conclusion I can draw is that for your model to work=20
it would require the ancient Hebrews to have had a=20
cognitive system not only different from modern day=20
humans but from primates and all other living animals=20
that have eyes and ears.

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science=20
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew       -  thesis1: concept driven machine transl=
ation using the Aleppo codex=20
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc  -  thesis2: language acquisition simulati=
on

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------





























































































0d
-------------------------------------------------------

James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science 
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew       -  thesis1: concept driven machine transl=
ation using the Aleppo codex 
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc  -  thesis2: language acquisition simulati=
on

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------