Biblical Hebrew Forum

["JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk>]

IF: It appears to me that you are mixing up two distinct linguistic  
issues: (1) word formation (which is inherent), and (2) the use of  
language (which is invented). I am not interested in the latter, only  
in the former. Children don't invent roots.

JCR: So that then begs the question "inherited from 
what"? Are you suggesting that the language was 
created this way (worth considering)? Or that it 
evolved (needs to address the cognitive problems I 
have raised)?

IF: I am surprised that you are prepared to accept Steven Pinker's  
scientological fantasies as though they were God's word to Moses on  
mount Sinai, but keep asking me for a proof to something that is  
obviously true.

JCR: Didn't realise he was a scientologist. I usually 
just listen to the arguments people make and the data 
behind them to consider whether they have good 
scientific basis. In any case your objections to 
Pinker are irrelevant in this case because the 
observations on cognitive development I am referring to 
are not his but are firmly rooted in the independent 
research of people like Piaget.

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

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

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























































































































Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Aug 29, 2007, at 4:43 PM, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ wrote:

>
> IF: 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.
>
> JCR: Ok! I am beginning to realise that maybe I haven't
> explained my objection to your model well enough. Let
> me try again but if I fail this time please let me
> know which parts I haven't explained well enough.
>
> Language is combinatorial. That is to say we combine
> words to make clauses. We combine clauses to make
> sentences etc. etc.This is the appealing part of your
> theory because it introduces a new level of combination
> - elemental consonants to form meaningful roots.
>
> There is no psycholinguistic problem to the observation
> that we combine words to make sentences because we
> have a cognitive system which is able to associate
> words with objects, their properties and their actions.
>
> There *is* a psycholinguistic problem with your model
> because there is no plausible cognitive model which
> would enable the brain of a human child to associate
> the elements you suggest with consonants and therefore
> be able to use them as a combinatorial basis.
>
> Please be specific about the parts you don't understand
> or take issue with in further replies.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>