On 14/03/2004 05:58, Brian Roberts wrote:--
>
> As there is no conclusive proof of the origins of Phoenician, Hebrew, > or Aramaic, I believe Karl's questions are not only valid, but should > be supported. If proto-Semitic is becoming a sacred cow without good > call, then it must be challenged.
>
> I believe that was Karl's point. He wasn't assuming Hebrew was the > original language, he was suggesting it. There is a tremendous > difference.
>
>
Well put, Brian. Proto-Semitic is indeed a scholarly construct, and like all scholarly constructs it needs to be reviewed carefully by scholars. If Karl has done that kind of thorough review, based on a proper understanding of comparative Semitic linguistics and of the evidence for and against the generally accepted scholarly reconstruction, he is of course entitled to put forward an alternative theory. I trust that he is not assuming without good reason (even in the Bible taken very literally, I should point out) that the traditional theory is wrong and that the original language is Hebrew. If he is taking that position, then (since Karl mentions evolution) Huxley's (alleged) words to Bishop Wilberforce apply:
"If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recording, it would rather be a /man/... who... plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real points at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice."
--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.