On 11/24/06, K Randolph wrote:Two problems with your argument:
> I don't know whether to answer you seriously, or just make mockery of
> your statements as did Isaac Fried.
Karl,
...
For example, as regarding the CV syllables,...
The other major point in discussion is the issue of the 22 letterIn order to show that an inscription were Hebrew though written with a
alphabet and Hebrew. I had previously asked you how I could tell if
a language was Hebrew, if it was written in a non-22 letter script but
in an inscription dated to 1500 BCE. You never responded. As long
as you fail to provide a way to determine if the language is Hebrew,
your theory is not falsifiable. It simply assumes that Hebrew is
always written in a 22 letter alphabet. Any evidence to the contrary
is disregarded because it's not Hebrew in your opinion. This is
circular reasoning at its best.
As for falsifying the theory relating to Shin and Sin, the theory behindYour argument in the above paragraphs is an example of the false
this conclusion relates to following observations:
1) Languages A and B are identified cognate languages, meaning they
appear to be genetically related based on a large set of words as explained
in the article I provided earlier.
2) Language A is attested twice, once (A1) with a writing system that
identifies X letters, and once (A2) with a writing system that distinguishes
two variants of one of the X letters (I'll call these variants L1 and L2).
3) Language B may be attested at approximately the same time as
attestation A1 historically or it may be attested later. In both cases,
however, the language makes the same distinctions for the two
variants L1 and L2 in the cognate reflexes of those words where
L1 and L2 appear in A2. Language B is not a development of A.
The theory suggests that while only X letters were written in attestation A1,
the two variants L1 and L2 are still distinguished by speakers of
the attestation A1 of language A.
Of course, the theory would explain Shin and Sin where A = Hebrew, A1 =
Pre-exilic archaeological attestations of Hebrew, A2 = The Massoretic
vocalization of Hebrew, B = Sabaean, Arabic or Aramaic. However, this is
a general claim and theory and is not related to any particular assignment
relating to Heberw, Sabaean, Arabic, etc, and can be applied to any
language. One can even choose a modern observed language where the
above observations are made and show that it does not occur in the
observed modern language, thus falsifying the theory.
Now, a little note on the nizkor site. It would be wrong for you toYou paragraph above baffles me, because it is internally inconsistent,
assume that I don't visit it, as you seem to suggest. Like I said, I
always visit the sites you reference, even though it appears you do
not always do the same for sites I suggest and sometimes point it
flat out (such as the Ugaritic evidence). Logic is more than
pointing out false conclusions. Furthermore, identifying fallacies
should be correctly applied. For example:
> Really, you ought to visit http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
> for this is an example of the Ad Populum logical fallacy, otherwise
> known as the appeal to popularity.
No. I am not saying your beliefs are false because people of a wide range
of theological beliefs approve of it. I am saying the contrary position is
not
dependent on any specific theological belief because we see that people
of a wide range of theological beliefs approve it. For the record, your
beliefs refer to the statement that I made saying that "you are practically
the only person here who believes that the 22 letter alphabet was designed
from scratch for Hebrew to mark all consonants separately."
Or:I already have, repeatedly so. We have historical claims in the
> > The statement I made is falsifiable. And the only thing I have is an
> > explanation and supporting evidence that is acceptable to anyone but
> > you.
> >
> Really, you ought to visit the nizkor site. This looks like the
> Bandwagon logical fallacy.
The Bandwagon fallacy relates to assertions, not evidence. If I bring in
evidence such as Ugaritic, or transcriptions of place names and words
in scripts dating to the 2nd Millenium BCE, and you say, "Well, this
is not evidence," that does not mean it's not evidence. If you would like
to dispute its status as evidence, you'll need to bring in criteria for
determining whether or not it is evidence.
However, in contrast, the following paragraph is full of logical fallaciesThis is a mere assertion, not an argument. You need to show what
and leaps of logic:
Yitzhak Sapir
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.