Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew as a holy language

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew as a holy language
  • Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 13:58:04 +0100

Before I respond any further Yitshak could you tell me, in your own words, what you believe my position to be on this subject?

James Christian




Quoting Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>:

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM, James Read wrote:

Of course, the reading of secondary sources can be useful it they reference
the primary sources well. Reading secondary sources that comment on primary
source evidence can help you understand the data relevant to the debate and
the various interpretations and help you form an opinion. The method of the
objective scientist is not to accept received wisdom but to put everything
to the test so as not to run the risk of making misguided conclusions based
on unfounded assumptions.

James, how would you know if the secondary source references a primary source
if you haven't read it? The method of the objective scientist is not
to discount
a peer-reviewed scientific publication without reading it first, or at
least without
being familiar with the views of the author in general.

However, quoting secondary sources and the primary sources they quote is one
thing. Telling a person to go away and read a book is a bout as useful as me
replying 'go away and read Genesis' with no indication as to which part of
it I feel will help you better understand the issues being discussed.

Maybe if you go look up the book you will find a chapter exactly
relevant, or you
will find the index useful. Maybe your question is so basic that it requires
reading whole books to understand the issues. Maybe you are asking a
question about grammar, and the person who responds knows it was dealt
with in a grammar book but doesn't remember the exact page.

In ancient times, languages were classified together based on
historical relationships, and vice versa. You can see this in the
Table of Nations, where the two are essentially implied together.

Well, yes and no. It is not entirely clear that the author's intention was
to suggest families of languages in any way.

I should point out that even in modern times (until Hetzron) Semitic
languages were classified by geography. (That is why we have such terms
as East Semitic, West Semitic, Northwest Semitic, South Semitic).

Yes. Linguistics can be useful. But as with any approach you need to
recognise its limitations before you start making conclusions and presenting
them as an absolute truth.

You are welcome to raise the limitations.

If in a few thousand years time somebody had no evidence other than a few
manuscripts from South America and North Africa he would conclude that the
South Americans came from Rome and that the North Africans all came from
Mecca.

No, because no one said that language transfer means population transfer.
That is an assumption you brought to the discussion.

Again, at first glance this might seem like a good method that provides
conclusive results. But that's more than a little naive. There are far too
many variables to make these kind of conclusions with any certainty.

Like what? Can you give a specific example from East Semitic languages
(such as Eblaite and Akkadian) as opposed to West Semitic languages
that substantiates your point? To quote yourself, "Evidence?!?!?!?!?!!"
Or to quote yourself a few lines down:
The main point at the end of the day is that we can only have any kind of
constructive and objective discussion by bringing the data to the fore.

This is why some people prefer to include in the consideration the things
written in the ancient sources.

e.g. if in a few thousand years somebody reads an account about how the
Spanish collonised South America the researcher could decide to conclude
that the South Americans once had their own indigenous language and spoke a
Latin based dialect as a result of the colonisation.

Again, linguists study languages. Just because language crosses
geographical distances does not mean that massive population
transfer took place.

Assuming that something is true just because person X who you, for whatever
reason, choose to respect is not the kind of argument that is likely to
convince me. I think (hope) Karl will back me up in this stance.

Sorry, James. Sometimes when you ask a question people answer you with
the best intentions, and it's not polite to snub their efforts. You
might try to
figure out why we choose to respect someone. What is his academic
background. If he did a dissertation on some topic in linguistics, for
example, maybe he is worth listening to. I don't mean accept what he says
uncritically. I mean, give him the credit to listen to what he says. Perhaps
it is too long to quote or respond here on list. Take some time, someone
answered you, try to look up and see if it addresses your question. The
discussion will advance much better if you go off to read what he says and
then come back and ask pertinent questions regarding his argument.

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





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page