To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] בעדי
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:20:01 -0400
On 4/28/2013 5:06 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:
> 1. As to "People generally do not write in a language they do not
> speak", Biblical Hebrew and spoken Hebrew (as possibly used by King
> David when mundanely conversing with his wives and children, as opposed
> to the language he used to address God) are not "different" languages.
Ok, I think I would agree... So why claim that we don't know if biblical
Hebrew was never spoken?
> 2. "Cognate" is nebulous, as it says nothing on the genetic
> relationships between these "cognates".
"Cognate" simply means two (or more) languages descended from the same
source language. Latin and Greek are obvious examples, Hebrew and Aramaic...
> 3. "real study" = stuffing the head with baloney made up by some eminent
> mumblers.
I see – everybody else is mistaken, and you are here to set us straight.
> 4. I am absolutely ignorant of what you mean by Hebrew etymology. Please
> explain.
Etymology simply means the development or history of the word in its
language, often going back to when the language was a different
language. I haven't studied historical linguistics for Semitic
languages, but an example in English would be "nice," which can be
traced back to the Latin *nescius* (foolish, ignorant). It comes into
English through Norman French, and the semantic range suffers grievously
along the way. It's also a good warning against assuming that the
earlier use of the word must carry the same meaning as the later (the
genetic fallacy).
Don't worry, after this response, I won't waste any more of your time.