That’s just my point! What does this theorized proto-language have to do
with the reality of what we can observe in Biblical Hebrew (Tanakh and a few
extent writings)? Yet time and again I read confident statements claiming
certain things for Biblical Hebrew language “because proto-Semitic had that
certain feature.” Did it? How does the statement’s author know? This is
especially relevant when I think the surviving observable evidence
contradicts those claims. There are many such claims I have seen over the
years.
[...]
Because we can be sure about only that which we can observe. All else is
speculation. And if it is based on models, models can be tweaked to say
whatever the modelmaker wants to say.
***
Irrelevant. This is not religion, it is linguistics.
Science is limited to the physical universe where observations can be made.
Linguistics is the scientific study of languages, which can be observed.
Dead languages (i.e. no longer spoken as a native tongue), like Biblical
Hebrew, can be studied only in so far as they have been written down, and we
can analyze those writings.
Karl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.