Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Kevin:

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>wrote:

>  Karl
>
> I have never understood what this has to do with reality.


That’s just my point! What does this theorized proto-language have to do
with the reality of what we can observe in Biblical Hebrew (Tanakh and a few
extent writings)? Yet time and again I read confident statements claiming
certain things for Biblical Hebrew language “because proto-Semitic had that
certain feature.” Did it? How does the statement’s author know? This is
especially relevant when I think the surviving observable evidence
contradicts those claims. There are many such claims I have seen over the
years.


>  We all make decisions based on the weight of evidence, on probability - in
> fact, on many things that don't involve the ability to observe.  Why should
> we restrict evidence for Hebrew at any stage to what can be observed?
>

Because we can be sure about only that which we can observe. All else is
speculation. And if it is based on models, models can be tweaked to say
whatever the modelmaker wants to say.

>
> When you consider that most of us here are believers of some sort, and that
> so much of religion is built on what cannot be observed, it just seem
> strange to keep coming back to this.
>

Irrelevant. This is not religion, it is linguistics.

Science is limited to the physical universe where observations can be made.
Linguistics is the scientific study of languages, which can be observed.
Dead languages (i.e. no longer spoken as a native tongue), like Biblical
Hebrew, can be studied only in so far as they have been written down, and we
can analyze those writings.

Religion is the overarching philosophical framework that we use to make
sense of our universe, even to the point of whether or not to accept the
workings of science or not. All religions contain a certain amount of faith,
basic postulates, that can’t be observed. But just saying that we shouldn’t
insist on observability when studying languages because religion has
elements that are not observable: that’s comparing apples with oranges.

>
> Kevin Riley


Karl W. Randolph.

>
>
> On 3/08/2010 2:26 AM, K Randolph wrote:
>
>>
>> I was trained in science classes to disregard any claims based on that
>> which is not observable. Neither ProtoSemitic nor ProtoHebrew have been
>> observed, but are built up based on models that may or may not be correct.
>>
>>
>> Karl W. Randolph.
>>
>>
>