On 20/11/2006 01:38, davidfentonism AT aim.com wrote:I disagree.
> I think the notion that thought bears no direct relationship to language is
inaccurate. Hebrew thoughtforms are directly linked to its language units. This
is not always the case with greek because of its propensity for abstractions.
However, in Hebrew, thoughtforms/language is tied to instances or things
existing in reality (e.g., the idea of stiffneckedness like an ox).
>
>
I will try to stick to matters of Hebrew language in replying here, and
avoid being distracted into comparative philosophy.
I agree that "the notion that thought bears NO direct relationship to
language is inaccurate", with the emphasis which I have added. But the
strength and directness of that relationship has often been greatly
overstated.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.