Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Isaac Fried's Theory (was Karl's lexicon)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaac Fried's Theory (was Karl's lexicon)
  • Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:27:57 -0400

James,

I am terribly sorry but what you are saying makes no sense to me. I know that the fault could rest all with me. I may be improperly hardwired, ignorant, or possibly not steeped deep enough in "psycholinguistics". I don't know. A statement such as "the only natural conclusion I can draw is that for your model to work it would require the ancient Hebrews to have had a cognitive system not only different from modern day humans but from primates and all other living animals that have eyes and ears" is truly beyond me. Sorry, we appear to inhabit different intellectual worlds.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Aug 29, 2007, at 3:43 PM, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ wrote:

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
invalidity of Indo-European linguistics for analysis of
your theory but I repeat, this time with emphasis,
*there are many more languages and therefore linguistic
models with which you could compare your model for
corroborative evidence*.

IF: of meaningless (word) patterns.

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

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

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

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

JCR: I am aware that there were mistakes in my
understanding of your work. I was notified of one
important one, off list, by another member. But may I
make the observation that you made no attempt to
correct my misunderstanding? I am willing to stand
corrected. Are you willing to consider valid criticisms
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
definitely have a lot to learn. My ideas will no doubt
continue to mature as a result of research and
participation in discussions such as those on this
mailing list. But are you at least willing to
acknowledge any or all of the following:

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

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

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

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

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





























































































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

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

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












































































_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page