Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Scope of data - language learning
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:26:37 -0500
[RANDALL BUTH] - Akkadian, Arabic, Geez, Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Aramaic are
all related and their cognate morphology needs to be explained.
---------------------------------------------
[KARL RANDOLPH] - You don't remember very well either. Just because a
language is a cognate, you forget that it is still a different language.
---------------------------------------------
[ISHINAN] - Nothing is going to alter one's mind if one's mind is stubbornly
locked on the idea that comparing Semitic languages to establish their
historical relatedness is futile. Such belief amounts to tying a debater's
arm behind his/her back and then expecting him/her to prevail and function
rationally. This odd behavior amounts to blowing out the faint light of a
candle in a dark room and insisting on tripping and stumbling while feeling
one's way. No amount of Randall's eloquence will dissuade Randolph's of his
peculiar ideas about the cognate Semitic languages. This, despite the
simple fact that there isn't a single page in any Biblical Hebrew dictionary
without the usual copious references to cognate languages.
I think this debate has reached a dead end. It appears that common sense
has left the premises, and only stubborn "denials" remain.
Ishinan Ishibashi
Re: [b-hebrew] Scope of data - language learning,
Ishinan, 03/25/2010