hebrew - significant archaeological find
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
headline : "Archaeologists announced this week the discovery of a
3,000-year-old Hebrew inscription. It is merely the latest of a series
of dramatic archaeological finds in Israel in recent months."
(10th Century BCE)
a)archaeologists are now proven wrong in jumping to the conclusion
that those other languages are hebrew's ancestor. This poor man is
going to have to rewrite his website wth his 'alphabet family tree' ;)
http://phoenicia.org/alphabet.html
b) perhaps all archaeologists will now jump to the conclusion,
raasoning that because hebrew is the earliest they found, it proves
that all other languages descend from hebrew! So far the only person
to say this (Quoted in the A7 article) is Dr. Ron Tappy, a professor
at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Doesn't look like an
archeologist. Time will tell reagrding archaeologists. Though I don't
think it matters what archaeologists say!
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
'slight' error in my comment !!!!
Languages were of course discovered before 10thC BCE , and that guy's
alphabet family tree - of course - goes back before that.
Joel Shurkin
You might want to see my blog on this,
Cheers.
J
--
Joel N. Shurkin
Baltimore, Maryland
On the web at: www.shurkin.us
and
http://cabbageskings.blogspot.com
http://yussel.blogspot.com
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Joel Shurkin wrote:
> You might want to see my blog on this,
>
> http://yussel.blogspot.com
>
> Cheers.
>
the Ktav Ivri script of hebrew(ancient hebrew) and ktav ashuri script,
are 2 old scripts. I am quite sure there's nothing in the talmud that
ktav ashuri developed from ktav ivri. On the contrary. I think they
had different purposes. Ktav Ivri was used for everyday things, and
ktav ashuri for what was holy. I guess ktav ivri fell out of use after
Jews were exiled and adopted the language of the host country for
secular matters. Religious matters were probably all in ktav ashuri
after Ezra had sifrei Torah writetn in ktav ashuri. I can't be sure
about this stuff since I have no sources to quote.
Also, the archaeological find doesnt' esem significant to me at all.
They already foudn that calendar in angient hebrew and from memory that
was about 900BC anyway. And that site puts 'ancient hebrew' at about 10
Century BC anyway.
Micha Berger
: the Ktav Ivri script of hebrew(ancient hebrew) and ktav ashuri script,
: are 2 old scripts. I am quite sure there's nothing in the talmud that
Actually, there is a medrash (at the begining of Yonah) that Ashuris
was in use in Assyria and imported by Jews. The medrash says that
Ashur, the forefather, refused to participate in building the tower
of Babel. Therefore, he was granted two gifts: his people retained the
sacred script, and Yonah was sent to give Nineveh, the capital of Assyria
(Ashur), a second chance.
The question of whether Moses used the sacred script, called Ashuris
(Assyrian or Praiseworthy [as in "Ashrei]), is raised in the Talmud.
The tablets were carved all the way through. In Ashuris and today's
print, the final mem and samech have a middle peice not connected to
the outside. Which means that in the tablets, it would not be attached.
According to one opinion these two letters floated in place miraculously.
According to the other, it's the tes and ayin that were miraculous.
How to understand this debate is itself a debate.
For more detail, here's a cut-n-paste from Avodah.
Gut Voch!
-mi
--
Micha Berger Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
We've already mentioned the braisa quoted in Megillah and Shabbos that R'
Chisda says the mem and samech of the luchos stood via neis.
(I might point out that while the letters were carved all the way through,
there was already a neis in the geometry involved, since they were not
backwards on the other side. Li nir'eh both are the same neis involving
the abnormality of the carving.)
Another argument in favor of the age of kesav Ashuris is Manachos 29b,
the famous medrash of R' Akiva darshening heaps of dinim from the tagim.
The halachic requirements also argue in its favor. Not that we require
Ashuris down to the kutzo shel yud -- that has a parallel in tefillah.
You are yotzei tefillah de'Oraisa if you say "haKel haqadosh" during the
10 yemei teshuvah. But Anshei Kenesses haGedolah (the same people as our
suspected adopters of Ashuris!) can require repetition of the Shemoneh
Esrei over this mistake. However, the qedushah of a sefer Torah requires
too many peratim specific to Ashuris. Do AKhG have the power to abrogate
qedushah that HKBH gave?
We also cited the Y'lmi version of the gemara in Megillah (1:9), where
R' Levi quotes Mar Zutra and R' Yosi that it was ayin and tes that had
floating peices.
The Radvaz suggests that there is no machloqes. The first luchos were
in Ashuris, and after the loss of Qedushah cause by the eigel, the 2nd
were given in kesav Ivris.
I have no idea what script this referrs to. Yes, the older "Canaanite
script" (which if we accept Lisa Leil's chronology the time in which it
was used was post-Yehoshua'), had closed shapes for ayin and tes. But
also many other letters (of those I recall: aleph, ches, samech, quf). I
had the hava amina that two letters were mentions as another version of
the same braisa. However, if R' Levi was presenting a different variant
of the same mesorah, then why wasn't samech shared in both versions?
The discussion of the script is really on Sanhedrin 21a-22b.
It opens with Mar Zutra, one of the possible sources in the Y'lmi for
ayin vetes, saying:
Bitechilah nitenah Torah leYisrael
bikesav Ivri velashon haqodesh.
Chazrah venitenah lahem biymei Ezra
bekesav Ashuris velashon Aramis.
However, we chose LhQ and Ashuris, leaving the other language and script
for the hedyotos.
R' Chisda, our source for mem vesamech, explains Mar Zutrah -- who until
now I had assumed was the other side of the machloqes. Heyotos are the
Kusiim, and kesav Ivri is Libunah.
The question as I see it is whether we can assume R' Chisda holds like
a shitah because he explains it. Beis Hillel, for example, was known
for first explaining the shitah of Beis Shammai that they rejected.
Alternatively, this could be a ra'ayah for the Radvaz, that there really
is no machloqes.
Returning for a moment to a halachic note, Rashi identifies Libunah as
a script used in kemei'os and mezuzos. So much for worrying about kutzo
shel yud...
The Amora'im in Sanhedrin take three posititions.
1- R' Yosi holds that the use of Ashuris was new institution biymei Ezra.
And Ashuris is named because it was brought over from Ashur.
That view also seems to be the one of a medrash quoted by a number of
rishonim on the begining of Yonah. There the person Ashur is credited with
not participating in Migdal Bavel for which he recieved two gifts: His
children were given a 2nd chance in the days of Yonah, and kesav Ashuris.
The problem is that we have no record of Ashur ever using Ashuris. RSM's
peshat on this does not help the medrash.
2- Rebbe holds it's a case of chazar veyasdum. Ashuris is from the same
shoresh as "ashrei". (The same etymology RSM quoted from Ramabam.)
Perhaps this is the same chazar veyasdum mentioned in the same TB
Megillah, in which AKhG restored the sofios. This assumes that Kesav
Ivri has no sofios.
3- R' Shim'on ben Elazar, and a mass of others, give the final opinion.
The two factors, number and finality, leads a few rishonim to conclude
that this is the gemara's maskana.
The script was always used in sifrei qodesh. Rather, it was only
popularized for other writing biymei Ezra.
The Radvaz's resolution would lead to this metzi'us as well, that the
sacred Ashuris was known to only a few, but given to the masses in Ivris.
This would also explain the use of the words "nitenah Torah leYisrael"
rather than simply "nitenah Torah". Because Mar Zutra in Sanhedrin is
discussing how it was given to the rabbim. If understood this way, then
the reference to Aramis is that the masses in the days of Ezra, speaking
Aramis and not LhQ, were given a targum. However, no one proposed changing
the language of the text itself. (What would happen to derashos if that
really were the proposal?)
This would explain why Daniel would be able to read the writing on the
wall, while most people could not -- it was in Ashuris!
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
thanks, I'll just add some more information - this is all good info for
the archives
I was fortunate to receive a book called "The Commentator's Gift of
Torah" by Rabbi Yitzchak Sender (a rosh yeshiva). It was given to me
as a barmitzva gift by the Gaon Dayan M Fisher Z"L .
In Chapter 2, there is a discussion "How was the Torah written" that
discusses the 3 opinions.
the 3 positions are
1 The Torah was originally in hebrew and then ezra changed it to
assyrian script
2 The Torah was originally in assyrian script then it was changed to
hebrew script then ezra changed it back to assyrian
3 The Torah was always in assyrian.
position 1 is held by Mar Ukva and Rabbi Yosi
position 2 is held by Rabbi Yehuda the prince
position 3 is held by Rabbi Elazar of modin
position 1 appears to raise many objections.
a)We are told that the Torah (tablets?) that Moshe received contained
crownlets. Only assyrian contains crownlets.
b)We are told that Mem and Samech are hollow and adhered to the
tablets. This only applies to assyrian (furthermore, Looking at
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/4_chart.html , none of the letters in
ancient hebrew are hollowed out.)
c)How could Ezra - the prophet - have had the authority to change the
writing of the Torah to Assyrian. Since the letters of the Torah are
not to be tampered with, not by 'any other prophet'.
The book then mentions the Radvaz's approach discusses the tablets and
answers all the objections raised against position 1. He says that all
agree that the first set of tablets were written in assyrian. He says
that the rabbis at position 1 hold that the second set of tablets were
written in hebrew. (So I guess the rabbis at position 1 were only
referring to the writen torah when they said the torah was originally
in krav ivri script)
The book goes on to explain that this resolves those objections a b and
c, of position 1.
objection a , is resolved because the Torah moshe originally
received was written in Ashuri
(I guess the books reasoning is that the first set of tablets were in
ashuri, and perhaps part of the written torah was received in ashuri. I
can't see the reasoning there, lack of information regarding the
receiving of the written torah).
objection b, is resolved , because - it seems to me from this book -
that chazal say that the miracle of samach and mem adhering only
applied to the first tablets. (I guess a tradition that the second
tablets were in ktav ivri, is strongly supported here. Though if the
reason for this miracle not occurring for the second tablets is that
the second tablets was ktav ivri, then I guess it'd call into question
position 3 )
objection c, is resolved beucase Ezra was only changing it back to
what it was originally. (it seems that the book may be implying taht
the whoel written torah was in assyrian)
That's the outline. The book - though informative, doesn't seem to
touch on this issue of whether it's talking about the written torah or
the tablets. Obviously ezra wasn't rewriting tablets, yet the Radvaz is
talking about tablets, as if that was what all teh positions were based
on. A relatied issue would be when the written torah was received in
relation to when the tablets were received. All I know regarding is
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes in Handbook Of Jewish Thought Vol 1, that
the written torah was received in the 1st and 40th year of wondering
the wilderness - 38 year gap where no Torah was received..
I haven't given this as much thought as I should. And I haven't
researched this properly myself by even picking up a Gemara and looking
at te sources myself. But that's my best attempt for now! No doubt the
issue is of interest to many members of the group, and I hope it helps
fellow googlers, should they chose to look into the issue.
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
>
> I have no idea what script this referrs to. Yes, the older "Canaanite
> script" (which if we accept Lisa Leil's chronology the time in which it
> was used was post-Yehoshua'),
Liel, actually.
Lisa
Herman Rubin
>(10th Century BCE)
It is the content of the discovery, not that there
are inscriptions that old. One century later, there
is plenty of evidence. The earliest known Semitic
writing is almost a millennium older; if one follows
the chronology in the Torah, almost certainly wrong,
this would still put it before Joseph.
The oldest known writing is about 3500 BCE, but today
few believe that there was an earliest language, at
least not one which could be reconstructed. Nor can
the history of the alphabet, or even of non-alphabetic
writing, shed any light on that of language.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Apart from your first sentence, you wrote a load of irrelevant tosh and
propaganda.
you just used that post as an excuse to hook on a whole load of
garbage.
We figured out pretty early on that the date of the inscriptions wasn't
relevant. The simple answer why, is that Hebrew itself was discovered
aroudn that time once before. So it's nothing new. We figured out
pretty early on (like my second correcting post) that the theology Dr
(non archaeologist) was wrong in concluding that this proves the other
languages to have descended from hebrew.
You go on and on about inscriptions. We resolved that already. Yes,
we know that other languages have been dug up earlier than hebrew.
This is no reason to launch a tirade against the chronology of our
Tradition. As if that somehow refutes anything under discussion. Nobody
ever claimed anything about Joseph predating other 'semitic' writing.
Joel Shurkin
Ron E. Tappy most certainly is an archaeologist and considered a leading
authority in the field. Also, what he found is called an abecedary,
which had not been found before, meaning they had an organized alphabet
and probably a working bureaucracy. The notion that other languages
derived from Hebrew is not new and is widely, though not universally,
accepted.
J
>
> You go on and on about inscriptions. We resolved that already. Yes,
> we know that other languages have been dug up earlier than hebrew.
> This is no reason to launch a tirade against the chronology of our
> Tradition. As if that somehow refutes anything under discussion. Nobody
> ever claimed anything about Joseph predating other 'semitic' writing.
>
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
I BELIEVE that hebrew is the first language, But it's wrong to conclude
that given this. He's concluding it for the wrong reasons.
Read this paragraph and tell me if you believe any of Ron Tappy's
conclusions
or I guess these aren't conclusions, they're just based on religious
beliefs he had before.
I suppose one might agree that "it is rare" bu what of the rest of what
he says.
The discovery was made by Dr. Ron Tappy, a professor at the Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary, on the last day of a five-week dig at Tel Zayit.
"This is very rare," he said, "This makes it very historically probable
there were people [3,000 years ago] who could write." In an interview
with the New York Times, Dr. Tappy said, "All successive alphabets in
the ancient world, including the Greek one, derive from this ancestor
at Tel Zayit."
Joel Shurkin
J
Rafael
news:dlcvlq$jt7$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
As a phonetical writing system (of which, say, Egyptian hieroglyphics and
Chinese characters are not), that claim is probably true.
But writing is a relatively recent invention which our foraging ancestors
lacked (although, as prehistoric cave paintings illustrate, they did have
artwork).
But Hebrew as the first language? I doubt that many (if any) linguists would
agree.
Rafael
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
How about just looking at the logic rather than whether most people
agree.
You cannot conclude that Hebrew was the first language by looking at
that piece of archeological evidence that hebrew existed in the 10thC
BCE. Infact, earlier archaeological finds show that hebrew existed at
that time already.
Obviously, that linguist believes in the truth of the bible and is
abusing archaeological evidence by making it apear that it proves
things that ti doesn't prove at all. It just hasn't contradicted the
bible.
I'm sure that when it was first fiscovered that Hebrew existed in the
10th BCE, the 'historical critics' were *amazed*. But this has been
known for some time now.
Currently, the premise/belief by which one logically reasons that
Hebrew was the first language, is the premise of the truth of the
Torah.
Herman Rubin
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Joel Shurkin wrote:
>> jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> > Herman Rubin wrote:
>> >>In article <1131822614.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=92812
.....................
>> Ron E. Tappy most certainly is an archaeologist and considered a leading
>> authority in the field. Also, what he found is called an abecedary,
>> which had not been found before, meaning they had an organized alphabet
>> and probably a working bureaucracy. The notion that other languages
>> derived from Hebrew is not new and is widely, though not universally,
>> accepted.
>I BELIEVE that hebrew is the first language, But it's wrong to conclude
>that given this. He's concluding it for the wrong reasons.
>Read this paragraph and tell me if you believe any of Ron Tappy's
>conclusions
>or I guess these aren't conclusions, they're just based on religious
>beliefs he had before.
>I suppose one might agree that "it is rare" bu what of the rest of what
>he says.
>The discovery was made by Dr. Ron Tappy, a professor at the Pittsburgh
>Theological Seminary, on the last day of a five-week dig at Tel Zayit.
>"This is very rare," he said, "This makes it very historically probable
>there were people [3,000 years ago] who could write." In an interview
>with the New York Times, Dr. Tappy said, "All successive alphabets in
>the ancient world, including the Greek one, derive from this ancestor
>at Tel Zayit."
The oldest known alphabetic writing is a short inscription
on a cliff on the east side of the Nile; it is Semitic.
The Egyptians hired Semitic workers. It is almost 4000
years old. Sumerian writing goes back another 1500 years.
Chinese writing goes back 4500 years, and Egyptian 5000
years. There are LOTS of cuneiform clay tablets 4500
years old or older.
The oldest "significant amount" of Semitic alphabetic
writing is about 3500 years old.
It is likely that all alphabets got their idea from the
early Semitic one, and that the current Semitic and
other European and Middle Eastern alphabets descend
from this. However, the Indian alphabet is only partially
descended from this, and the Persian alphabet used on the
Behistun Rock, which was the multilingual used to get a
handle on Babylonian, was sufficiently different that it
was necessary to use knowledge of Persian, rather than
recognizing characters, to read it.
The most logical of the present alphabets is probably
Korean. Its characters are not based on the Semitic
alphabet or its descendents.
Rafael
<jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1132092382.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Not most people - most linguists; i.e. people whose profession it is to
study language.
Rafael
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
most people includes the set of 'most linguists'. But even looking at
whatether most linguists agree or not, is irrelevant. Just look at the
logic.
Don't trust archaeologists or linguists to be logical. It's not their
profession.
Shlomo Argamon
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Rafael wrote:
> > <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1132092382.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Rafael wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As a phonetical writing system (of which, say, Egyptian hieroglyphics
> > and
> > > > Chinese characters are not), that claim is probably true.
> > > >
> > > > But writing is a relatively recent invention which our foraging
> > ancestors
> > > > lacked (although, as prehistoric cave paintings illustrate, they did
> > have
> > > > artwork).
> > > >
> > > > But Hebrew as the first language? I doubt that many (if any) linguists
> > would
> > > > agree.
> > >
> > > How about just looking at the logic rather than whether most people
> > > agree.
> >
> > Not most people - most linguists; i.e. people whose profession it is to
> > study language.
>
Logical fallacy, my friend. If A includes B, and most of B are X, then
it does NOT follow that most of A are X. N'est pas?
> But even looking at
> whatether most linguists agree or not, is irrelevant. Just look at the
> logic.
> Don't trust archaeologists or linguists to be logical. It's not their
> profession.
Whose profession is it to be logical, then? Or should we just not
trust anyone (except you, of course)?
Of course, the real question here is what the evidence is that Hebrew
was or was not the first language, not what authorities say one thing
or the other...
-Shlomo-
Ken Bloom
> most people includes the set of 'most linguists'. But even looking at
> whatether most linguists agree or not, is irrelevant. Just look at the
> logic.
> Don't trust archaeologists or linguists to be logical. It's not their
> profession.
I trust linguists to understand the unique logic and knowledge that goes
into linguistics much more than I trust someone who says "How about just
looking at the logic rather than whether most people agree."
Likewise for doctors, computer scientists, or any other profession. The
reason we have schools to teach these things is because you can't just
decide these issues on your own with a little bit of logic. It takes
years of study, understanding the ins and outs of the subject.
--Ken Bloom
--
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Shlomo Argamon wrote:
> jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Rafael wrote:
> > > <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:1132092382.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Rafael wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > As a phonetical writing system (of which, say, Egyptian hieroglyphics
> > > and
> > > > > Chinese characters are not), that claim is probably true.
> > > > >
> > > > > But writing is a relatively recent invention which our foraging
> > > ancestors
> > > > > lacked (although, as prehistoric cave paintings illustrate, they did
> > > have
> > > > > artwork).
> > > > >
> > > > > But Hebrew as the first language? I doubt that many (if any) linguists
> > > would
> > > > > agree.
> > > >
> > > > How about just looking at the logic rather than whether most people
> > > > agree.
> > >
> > > Not most people - most linguists; i.e. people whose profession it is to
> > > study language.
> >
> > most people includes the set of 'most linguists'.
>
> Logical fallacy, my friend. If A includes B, and most of B are X, then
> it does NOT follow that most of A are X. N'est pas?
wow, this is fun
A=linguists, B=people, X=condition (not accepting the bad reasoning)
I don't agree with concluding that most of A are X, in that manner. I
never stated that reasoning.
You seem to have things a bit oddly. A doesn't include B. A < B.
So I guess you mean
A = People B=linguists X=condition
Your reasoning is that there are those in A and not B that are not X.
I don't agree. You have misdefined A. I am starting with the
premise that most of A are X.
The fact that most of A are X, is a PREMISE that I just stated
plainly, there is no disagreement here. The lefty I was arguing with
(herman? raphael? JJ levin? Joel Shurkin?) whoever, said that most
linguishs wouldn't accept such daft logic. I agree with him. And say
most people wouldn't either.
If you were really nit picking with a sentence I wrote . When I said
"most people includes the set of 'most linguists'." then - in
retrospect - I could find a possible problem for you!
I see a potential problem with the statement I made. Why should most
people that fulfill condition X, include most linguists that fulfill
condition X. The answer is simple though, I am defining most people as
all those that fulfill condition X. So it's not really a problem at
all.
But to make things clearer
Perhaps what I should have said was.
Most people fulfill condition X.
Most linguists fulfill condition X.
So if you go with most people, you're going with most linguists.
> > But even looking at
> > whatether most linguists agree or not, is irrelevant. Just look at the
> > logic.
> > Don't trust archaeologists or linguists to be logical. It's not their
> > profession.
>
> Whose profession is it to be logical, then? Or should we just not
> trust anyone (except you, of course)?
My suggestion is certainly not to trust or not trust any conclusion
that 95% of the population make, if they haven't produced reasoning.
That includes me. Everybody should show the logic behind their
argument. This Dr has not given a logical argument , so I do not trust
him.
Now, if he had a PhD in mathematical deduction, and he had written an
article that is so complicated that I cannot understand the logic,
then, I might trust him, or I might still be in doubt. But only then,
where I cannot understand his logic, does the issue of trust come in.
Another scenario, is if the person making the statement has proven
himself to be such a master of logic, that when questioned, experience
has shown that he always produces beautiful sound logical arguments,
but this time a brief statement giving his conclusion, has appeared.
Then I might trust him, even though he hasn't shown his reasoning. So
as you can see, there are cases when one might trust somebody. But
these are few. Dr whatever doesn't fit this category. Another example,
would be if the logic was not well explained, or, was too difficult to
understand, but was at least public , and open to criticism. And it
were still too difficult for me to follow, then I might still trust the
individual - looking at the nature of the criticism involved. For
example, check out the torahcodes website by Witzum. The original
mathematics paper was published, was hard to understand. The logic was
open to the public. A group of scientists responded, and, the nature of
the criticism, and the responses, reveal Witzum to be a master of
logic. So, in this case, I decide that he is honest, and a master of
logic. So I may trust him even if I didn't understand the original
maths behind his thesis. The archaeologist/theologian Dr whatever
mentioned in that article, does not fit any of these categories. I
haven't read this whole chunk I just wrote through, so I could draft it
and nit pick it tomorrow, buit i'll leave it as it is and you can get
the jist.
> Of course, the real question here is what the evidence is that Hebrew
> was or was not the first language, not what authorities say one thing
> or the other...
I'm no archaeologist, but if tere was evidence i'd have heard of it. I
think there is no archaelogical evidence whatsoever. Nothing proves
one way or the other.
But I believe via reasons similar to most other orthodox jews here,
that the Torah is true and that leads me to make certain conclusions.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
slight correction here, B=most people
> I don't agree with concluding that most of A are X, in that manner. I
> never stated that reasoning.
>
> You seem to have things a bit oddly. A doesn't include B. A < B.
as I said! B= most people !!!.
Shlomo Argamon
Perhaps I misunderstand. The conversation, as I saw it, went:
Refael: Most linguists doubt that Hebrew was the first language.
Formally: Most A (linguists) are X (doubters that Hebrew was the first
language).
James: Who cares if most people agree?
Formally: Who cares if most B (people) are X?
Now, for this statement not to be a non-sequitur, the statement "Most B
are X", where B properly includes A, should be logically related to
"Most A are X", with the tightest connection being where one implies
the other (or they are equivalent, which is clearly not the case).
However, most As can be X with most Bs being not-X, as well as the
converse. So, what logical relation exactly *are* you claiming between
these two statements? Or did you mean something else entirely?
Note as well that most linguists believing something about language is
a far cry from most people believing something, as linguists are people
who, generally speaking, spend a lot of time thinking, examining, and
analyzing language, and hence can be assumed to have some expertise in
the area. Or would you claim that opinion polls would give the same
quality of medical advice as a specialist physician?
Knowledge of logic is important, as is a working knowledge of
statistical reasoning. One need not be a logician to have such
knowledge. I believe that a working knowledge of practical rhetoric,
including critical reading, is also essential.
-Shlomo-
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Was it "Donated by Mr. and Mrs. Murray Bernstein
in honor of their son Herbie's Bar Mitzva" ? :-)
> The Egyptians hired Semitic workers. It is almost 4000
> years old. Sumerian writing goes back another 1500 years.
> Chinese writing goes back 4500 years, and Egyptian 5000
> years. There are LOTS of cuneiform clay tablets 4500
> years old or older.
>
> The oldest "significant amount" of Semitic alphabetic
> writing is about 3500 years old.
There is research on proto-Semitic and proto-Indo European
having a common source.
>
> It is likely that all alphabets got their idea from the
> early Semitic one, and that the current Semitic and
> other European and Middle Eastern alphabets descend
> from this. However, the Indian alphabet is only partially
> descended from this, and the Persian alphabet used on the
> Behistun Rock, which was the multilingual used to get a
> handle on Babylonian, was sufficiently different that it
> was necessary to use knowledge of Persian, rather than
> recognizing characters, to read it.
See above.
>
> The most logical of the present alphabets is probably
> Korean. Its characters are not based on the Semitic
> alphabet or its descendents.
I don't know about Korean but there are thousands of words
in Japanese which seem to have a Semitic source (when word
order is reversed). Isaac Mozeson (comparative linguistics)
has done extensive research in this area.
Josh
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Ken Bloom wrote:
> jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > most people includes the set of 'most linguists'. But even looking at
> > whatether most linguists agree or not, is irrelevant. Just look at the
> > logic.
> > Don't trust archaeologists or linguists to be logical. It's not their
> > profession.
>
> I trust linguists to understand the unique logic and knowledge that goes
> into linguistics much more than I trust someone who says "How about just
> looking at the logic rather than whether most people agree."
>
> Likewise for doctors, computer scientists, or any other profession. The
> reason we have schools to teach these things is because you can't just
> decide these issues on your own with a little bit of logic. It takes
> years of study, understanding the ins and outs of the subject.
>
> --Ken Bloom
that is only true in a case where, in the expert's explanation, the
logic is so intertwined with the subject matter that one must be an
expert in the subject matter to understand the person's reasoning.
By the way. Linguistics does not have its own logic. Computer science
does not have its own logic.
Linguistics, computer science, all fields rely on the same logic that
is governmed by the same mathematical principles. you look at the
logic in Linguistics degrees, or Computer science degrees. It is the
same mathematical study, involving set theory and natural deduction.
Just CS uses it to analyse algorithms. Linguistics uses it to analyse
sentences. (of course an algorithm is an unambiguous sequence of
instructions, and tthese are in a sense, concise sentences). Same
logic. Same logic subject really. Infact the books on logic which are
used on computer science courses, often have some chapters on natural
deduction(maths) , program specification(uses the maths). And some
chapters on analysing the meaning of sentences. Mathematically the
same principles apply. Logic is a subject. The laws of set theory or
natural deduction do not change depending on whether you're in computer
science or linguistics. I've seen the course material!
I knew a logic professor that could pick out problems with anything.
He'd get so mad sometimes, and one of his biggest pet hates is
listening to the extraordinarily faulty logic of politicians. It all
boils down to letters and symbols.
There are Professors of Philosophy, some of whome are real masters of
logic, that get involved in studying the methodology used by
scientists. Scientists have also written books for laymen that just
break down the arguments on evolution and just show logical problems
with their opponents arguments. I haven't really looked into that
stuff though. But apparently Dawkins comes under heavy criticism from
fellow evolutionary scientists and from professors of philosophy who
are moe than capable of studying the logic involved in the arguments.
Micha Berger
: By the way. Linguistics does not have its own logic. Computer science
: does not have its own logic.
But both quantum mechanics and halakhah do!
I know, a tangent. But this discussion of what linguistics is threatens
to grow into a tangent itself, AND it's off-topic.
-mi
--
Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
well, my point was that most people agree that this reasoning is wrong.
most archaeologists would agree that his reasoning is wrong. Most
orthodox jews would agree that his reasoning is wrong. Most reform
too.
The reason being, because it's obvious that his reasoning is wrong. His
logic is non existsant.
But since it's so obvious, who needs to look at who else agrees?
there shouldn't be any persronal doubt that one feels the need to
consult / consider the majourity. And the logi cis so simple thst
linguistics experts have no advantage over joe public. The archaeology
is so removed from the logic that archaeologists have no advantage over
joe public.
.
Rafael
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:dlf451$cah$2...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:17:32 +0000 (UTC), jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
<jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> : By the way. Linguistics does not have its own logic. Computer science
> : does not have its own logic.
Which only demonstrates that a basic grasp of logic is an insufficient
criterion for expertise in the field. One must also study and learn the
facts pertaining to the particular field (at least if one is to succeed in
the profession).
> But both quantum mechanics and halakhah do!
>
> I know, a tangent. But this discussion of what linguistics is threatens
> to grow into a tangent itself, AND it's off-topic.
Agreed.
Rafael
Shlomo Argamon
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:17:32 +0000 (UTC), jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> : By the way. Linguistics does not have its own logic. Computer science
> : does not have its own logic.
>
> But both quantum mechanics and halakhah do!
>
> I know, a tangent. But this discussion of what linguistics is threatens
> to grow into a tangent itself, AND it's off-topic.
True. To get it slightly more on-topic (have a little patience):
Mathematical logic is only a small corner, really, of logic (= the
science of valid reasoning). The program, exemplified by Russell &
Whitehead's Principia, to establish all of mathematics on the basis of
formal logic (set theory, more or less) foundered on Goedel's theorems,
and reasoning in other fields only makes the problem worse. For
example, the "13 modes of interpretating the Torah" (R. Yishma'el's
version) are not principles of formal mathematical logic, but rather
rhetorical principles; even those which are "logical" as opposed to
"linguistic" in nature, cannot easily (if at all) be placed in a purely
formal framework. And of course even formal logic comes in many
varieties, as Micha notes.
-Shlomo-
PS: I leave Micha's signature & quote, as it bears repeating:
Herman Rubin
Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> most people includes the set of 'most linguists'. But even looking at
>> whatether most linguists agree or not, is irrelevant. Just look at the
>> logic.
>> Don't trust archaeologists or linguists to be logical. It's not their
>> profession.
>I trust linguists to understand the unique logic and knowledge that goes
>into linguistics much more than I trust someone who says "How about just
>looking at the logic rather than whether most people agree."
>Likewise for doctors, computer scientists, or any other profession. The
>reason we have schools to teach these things is because you can't just
>decide these issues on your own with a little bit of logic. It takes
>years of study, understanding the ins and outs of the subject.
The study of the thousands of languages has led to some
understanding, enough to utterly reject the Biblical
idea of a common language that recently. There are those
who argue for a common language at one time, but even
those few linguists consider any of the present languages
to be that.
In this case, it does not take years of study, in fact
this is exaggerated, but it does take an intelligent look
at the facts, and literary linguists disagree on much of
this with "scientific" linguists, or even with scientists
in general. But a common ancestor for Hebrew and Greek
is at best highly problematic. Nor does Hebrew appear
to be the ancestral Semitic language.
Herman Rubin
>In article <dldmnk$2j...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>> In article <1132051742....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Joel Shurkin wrote:
>>>> jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>> > Herman Rubin wrote:
>>>> >>In article <1131822614.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> >>jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> >>>http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=92812
.....................
>>>The discovery was made by Dr. Ron Tappy, a professor at the Pittsburgh
>>>Theological Seminary, on the last day of a five-week dig at Tel Zayit.
>>>"This is very rare," he said, "This makes it very historically probable
>>>there were people [3,000 years ago] who could write." In an interview
>>>with the New York Times, Dr. Tappy said, "All successive alphabets in
>>>the ancient world, including the Greek one, derive from this ancestor
>>>at Tel Zayit."
>> The oldest known alphabetic writing is a short inscription
>> on a cliff on the east side of the Nile; it is Semitic.
>Was it "Donated by Mr. and Mrs. Murray Bernstein
>in honor of their son Herbie's Bar Mitzva" ? :-)
>> The Egyptians hired Semitic workers. It is almost 4000
>> years old. Sumerian writing goes back another 1500 years.
>> Chinese writing goes back 4500 years, and Egyptian 5000
>> years. There are LOTS of cuneiform clay tablets 4500
>> years old or older.
>> The oldest "significant amount" of Semitic alphabetic
>> writing is about 3500 years old.
>There is research on proto-Semitic and proto-Indo European
>having a common source.
There is, but not much. Were it not for the large number
of cross-checking, even Indo European would be difficult to
come up with. And Semitic is part of Afro-Asiatic.
But none of this has anything to do with the history of the
alphabet. The separation of languages was made long before
anyone thought of writing with symbols for sounds rather
than objects or ideas or syllables.
>> It is likely that all alphabets got their idea from the
>> early Semitic one, and that the current Semitic and
>> other European and Middle Eastern alphabets descend
>> from this. However, the Indian alphabet is only partially
>> descended from this, and the Persian alphabet used on the
>> Behistun Rock, which was the multilingual used to get a
>> handle on Babylonian, was sufficiently different that it
>> was necessary to use knowledge of Persian, rather than
>> recognizing characters, to read it.
Again, Persian is Indo-European, and even with the long
contact between the Medes and Persians with Aramaic, which
used a version of the early Semitic alphabet, they used
their own unrelated alphabet. The language was well known
using the Aramaic script, but the inscription had totally
different characters. This was Persian before the
conquest by Alexander; later Persian used the Aramaic
script, which is like Hebrew.
>See above.
>> The most logical of the present alphabets is probably
>> Korean. Its characters are not based on the Semitic
>> alphabet or its descendents.
>I don't know about Korean but there are thousands of words
>in Japanese which seem to have a Semitic source (when word
>order is reversed). Isaac Mozeson (comparative linguistics)
>has done extensive research in this area.
Again, I said alphabet, not language.
Herman Rubin
Shlomo Argamon <arg...@argamon.com> wrote:
>Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:17:32 +0000 (UTC), jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> : By the way. Linguistics does not have its own logic. Computer science
>> : does not have its own logic.
>> But both quantum mechanics and halakhah do!
Quantum mechanics does not have an adequate logic. However,
what is observed by any observer satisfies "ordinary" logic.
>> I know, a tangent. But this discussion of what linguistics is threatens
>> to grow into a tangent itself, AND it's off-topic.
>True. To get it slightly more on-topic (have a little patience):
>Mathematical logic is only a small corner, really, of logic (= the
>science of valid reasoning). The program, exemplified by Russell &
>Whitehead's Principia, to establish all of mathematics on the basis of
>formal logic (set theory, more or less) foundered on Goedel's theorems,
Not at all. It is still the case that all of mathematics
is explained by the same logic; it is just that some things
might never be answered. One can add more to get those
answered, but then some others cannot be, etc. If the
assumptions lead to an inconsistency, some assumptions
are scrapped, in the hope that that inconsistency has been
eliminated, but the logic is still kepts. Goedel's theorems
are true in a weaker logic, but the "usual" logic will not
lead to an inconsistency; it is not powerful enough. Set
theory is NOT formal logic; formal logic is only the
framework within which mathematics is done.
>and reasoning in other fields only makes the problem worse. For
>example, the "13 modes of interpretating the Torah" (R. Yishma'el's
>version) are not principles of formal mathematical logic, but rather
>rhetorical principles; even those which are "logical" as opposed to
>"linguistic" in nature, cannot easily (if at all) be placed in a purely
>formal framework.
Rhetorical principles can lead to contradictory results;
the ones above do.
And of course even formal logic comes in many
>varieties, as Micha notes.
Not that many. The weaker ones, adequate for Goedel's
results, are clumsy to use and even unclear. I am
familiar with the attempts to do mathematics with them,
and the problems are too great.
Henry Goodman
news:1132097695.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rafael wrote:
> > <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1132092382.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
people
> > > agree.
> >
> > Not most people - most linguists; i.e. people whose profession it
is to
> > study language.
> >
> > Rafael
> >
>
> most people includes the set of 'most linguists'. But even looking
at
> whatether most linguists agree or not, is irrelevant. Just look at
the
> logic.
> Don't trust archaeologists or linguists to be logical. It's not
their
> profession.
It is certainly not true that "most people includes the set of 'most
linguists' "
Confining ourselves to this country say there are 60,000,000 people in
this country of whom 50,000,000 agree that Hebrew is the first
language. Of these people say 500 are professional linguists of whom 2
think Hebrew is the first language, The set of most linguists is
certainly not a subset of most people.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
When I say "most people agree..." I am defining my set as those people
that agree. and I'm saying that it is most of the country.
And the issue that agreement is over, is not whether or not hebrew is
the first language. The issue is whether or not one could conclude
that hebrew is the first language, given that piece of archaeological
evidence and its date. Mopre specifically, we're not looking for
whether or not. We're looking for those that do not conclude that, and
saying they are the majourity.
So, your numbers are odd. 5/6 of people agree with Dr whatever who
makes the strange conclusion?!
My premise is that most people wouldn't agree with him.
Anyhow, you say that 50 million believe hebrwe is the first language
(and that isn't even the issue). And then you pick from there 500
linguists and say that only 2 of them believe hebrew is the first
language. That;s impossible, you did say "50,000,000 agree that
Hebrew is the first language. Of these people ..." So all of the 50
million agree, you can't pick from there anybody that disagrees. 0
disagree in that set.
note: one may choose most people in the coutnry, of which some agree
and some don't agree. And you would find that most agree. And perhaps
that might not include most linguists, since even though most believe
hebrew to be the first language, you may not have chosen them. Though
if it's truly random, perhaps it will include most linguists. But that
isn't so relevant. I did mean that we pick all the people that
do not believe hebrew to be the first language, and that makes the set.
I didn't mean randomly pick and then look in the set and see what the
majoirity believe. It's not relevant, since you didn't do it that way
either.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Henry Goodman wrote:
> <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1132097695.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Rafael wrote:
> > > <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:1132092382.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > How about just looking at the logic rather than whether most
> people
> > > > agree.
> > >
> > > Not most people - most linguists; i.e. people whose profession it
> is to
> > > study language.
> > >
> > > Rafael
> > >
> >
> > most people includes the set of 'most linguists'. But even looking
> at
> > whatether most linguists agree or not, is irrelevant. Just look at
> the
> > logic.
> > Don't trust archaeologists or linguists to be logical. It's not
> their
> > profession.
>
> It is certainly not true that "most people includes the set of 'most
> linguists' "
I'm referring to the most people that agree you cannot conclude hebrew
is the first language given that evidence.
And that'd include most linguists.
Whether a random selection of most people would include most linguists
, wasn't the issue. I think it might, but i'm not sure! Of course, if
the selection wasn't random, then it'd be possible to choose most
people and have it include no linguists at all!
Herman Jurjus
[...]
>
>>And of course even formal logic comes in many
>>varieties, as Micha notes.
>
>
> Not that many. The weaker ones, adequate for Goedel's
> results, are clumsy to use and even unclear. I am
> familiar with the attempts to do mathematics with them,
> and the problems are too great.
Would you care to mention which examples you have in mind, here?
(Perhaps via email, or in sci.logic, or so? As i guess it would be off
topic in scjm.)
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
yaco...@aol.com
Herman Rubin wrote:
> Rhetorical principles can lead to contradictory results;
> the ones above do.
Indeed. Which is why they are rhetoric and not logic. So what is your
point? Do you have a problem with rhetoric allowing contradictory
results? What is wrong with that?
You yourself use the word "liberty" much differently than say
socialists do. Same word, same rhetoric, vastly different results.
So?
> And of course even formal logic comes in many
> >varieties, as Micha notes.
>
> Not that many. The weaker ones, adequate for Goedel's
> results, are clumsy to use and even unclear. I am
> familiar with the attempts to do mathematics with them,
> and the problems are too great.
But "doing mathematics" is not the topic under discussion.
Jacko