Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

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