Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

The problem with any such reconstruction, whether by machine of by hand, is the set of presuppositions that guide any such reconstruction. What if they’re wrong? Then it’s a case of GIGO.

For example, does Yemini Arabic represent an older form of the language, or was it corrupted by contact through trade with Africa and Asia, corruption that doesn’t extend to other dialects of Arabic nor other Semitic languages? What about the role of linguistic borrowing?

So far it looks as if the “reconstructions” refer only to vocabulary, not grammar.

I can’t help but remain sceptical.

No, I don’t have access to the whole article.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Rev. Bryant J. Williams III <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net> wrote:

Dear List,

 

BAR has the following article on Recreating the Origins of Lanauges. This article is a small summary of a larger BBC article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21427896. This BBC article is actually a reporting of the larger  Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/05/1204678110 ). Sorry, I am not a subscriber to this journal.

 

...

 

Any comments? Does any one have the full PNAS article?

 

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

 

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/recreating-the-origins-of-language/?mqsc=E3463164&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHDWeekinReviewNewsletter&utm_campaign=E3B223