Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ishinan" <ishinan AT comcast.net>]

[RANDALL BUTH] - Akkadian, Arabic, Geez, Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Aramaic are 
all related and their cognate morphology needs to be explained.

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

[KARL RANDOLPH] - You don't remember very well either. Just because a 
language is a cognate, you forget that it is still a different language.

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

[ISHINAN] - Nothing is going to alter one's mind if one's mind is stubbornly 
locked on the idea that comparing Semitic languages to establish their 
historical relatedness is futile.  Such belief amounts to tying a debater's 
arm behind his/her back and then expecting him/her to prevail and function 
rationally.  This odd behavior amounts to blowing out the faint light of a 
candle in a dark room and insisting on tripping and stumbling while feeling 
one's way.  No amount of Randall's eloquence will dissuade Randolph's of his 
peculiar ideas about the cognate Semitic languages.  This, despite the 
simple fact that there isn't a single page in any Biblical Hebrew dictionary 
without the usual copious references to cognate languages.

I think this debate has reached a dead end.  It appears that common sense 
has left the premises, and only stubborn "denials" remain.


Ishinan Ishibashi