Skip to Content.

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
  • To: "B Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] BO and BO)
  • Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:41:14 +1000 (AUS Eastern Standard Time)



-------Original Message-------

From: JAMES CHRISTIAN READ
Date: 20/08/2007 6:19:29 PM

Hi Isaac,

Any theory that attempts to account for language by its
Building blocks is worth considering. Language is, after
All, a combinatorial process. Morphemes + roots = words,
Words + more words = meaningful clauses. Clauses + more
Clauses = meaningful sentences. Sentences + more
Sentences = meaningful paragraphs. Paragraphs + more
Paragraphs = a story. So it would make sense that a
Primitive languages' phonemes had conceptual meaning of
Their own which could be combined to express more
Meaningful concepts.

*******************************
The main problem with this theory is probably that there is no evidence that
"primitive" languages did indeed work this way. Going back in most
languages I know of just leads to equally complex languages. So where do we
find these primitive languages against which to test the theory.

Kevin Riley















Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.