Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>]

From: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>


> theology can attach to all things.
>
> in so far as you can divorce theology from any thing, however, so can i.
>
> i suggested hebrew was a time based language. you contested that 
> conclusion.
***
This conclusion has already been challenged in the past, but without any 
particular substantiation.
I'm still waiting for any evidence.
A.
***


> i responded with comments describing our universe as one consisting of 
> three
> dimensions of space and one of time. I then compared it to another 
> possible
> universe that possesses not those dimensions. that's not theology. that's
> just discussion of different universes.
***
Actually it can also be different theories about the same universe.
A.
***


> linguistics includes the meaning of words.
***
I'd rather say: no, it doesn't.
Semantics is vaster than linguistics, and I tend to think that they are 
better kept at a short distance of each other.
A.
***


> my comments on the
> inapplicability of the hebrew language word meanings to any universe other
> than a time based universe, represent linguistics, not theology.
***
I don't think it's linguistics,
sounds more like a kind of logicist prejudice.
Linguistics usually only badly conforms to logics.
A.
***



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)
***
Certainly a bit superficial.
A.
***


> > On 12/19/10, fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com> wrote:

> > > The structure of aramaic, and cousin biblical hebrew, is designed for 
> > > use
> > in
> > > our four dimensional world of space//time; a world of physicality
> > > and constant change. The language structure is not equipped to
> > participate
> > > in some other dimensional universe, bereft of space & time. The
> > vocabulary
> > > suite results from & speaks to our material world.
> > >
> > > hence, when isaiah speaks of ארץ and שמים and ימות and ימים ; and when
> > > daniel talks of מלכו , that language represents a language of four
> > > dimensional space/time; not some other dimensional universe. "land;"
> > > "sky;" "die" and "day" imply boundaries; boundaries of space; 
> > > boundaries
> > of
> > > change; boundaries of time. These words are incompetent to express a
> > world,
> > > a universe, where nothing changes and nothing is possessed of
> > physicality;
> > > in other words the absence of space/time.
> > >
> > > and if aramaic and hebrew verbs incompetent to express completed 
> > > action,
> > > then everyone in the masoretic text both alive and dead,
> > > simultaneously, today.

***
(1)To have words for time and death, or a wide array of words with "death" 
semantemes like kill, slay, decease, etc. or (2) That the speakers 
understand what a boundary is has nothing to do with (3) to have tenses or 
aspects which express completed action.
The reasoning is clearly false.
A.
***