Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   basic reading of genesis 1:1
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 211 of 312 (611162)
04-05-2011 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by ICANT
04-05-2011 7:31 PM


Re: research fail
ICANT writes:
Not really, Hitpael, and Hufal does not have an infinitive.
sure they do. they might not be used in the bible, of course. but that doesn't mean that you cannot make an infinitive out of those stems.
Then present the supporting argumentation.
i have. many times. you have chosen to ignore it, because you don't seem to believe in grammatical context -- only what your books tells you each individual word means.
I was using an Ancient Biblical Hebrew verb chart.
But my new program that gives some 270 parseings of ברא also disagrees with me. They give the Hifil infinitive as:
לְהַבְרִיא
clearly, that has a to- prefix.
Are you telling me if I don't comprehend English as you do I can not understand Ancient Biblical Hebrew?
no. i'm telling you that you probably do not comprehend all the grammatical rules you use on a daily basis. there is difference between being able to write a grammar textbook, and being able to write.
Both are clauses and have verbs and a subject.
Independent stands alone and subordinate (dependent) can't stand alone.
In English 'Be' is a verb that can be used to denote was, were, been, being, am, are, and is. Be is the action of existing in some tense.
In English 'Do' is a verb that can be used to denote did, done, doing, and does. Do is the result of action in some tense.
They can both exist in any tense.
i was asking you about the specific cases you used, and the temporal relationship between your verbs.
But what does this have to do with Ancient Biblical Hebrew?
because you don't see how grammar can be more complicated to explain than it is to use. you seem to think that because you can't explain biblical hebrew grammar very well, the authors must not have been using it.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2011 7:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 12:47 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 212 of 312 (611164)
04-06-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by arachnophilia
04-05-2011 11:24 PM


Re: research fail
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
clearly, that has a to- prefix.
Not according to the bare link you gave me. According to it the lamed is the most used temporal infinitive construct used in the Hebrew language.
The program I have is supposed to cover Biblical Hebrew as well as Modern Hebrew.
I don't agree with the program, but your bare link does on page 607.
It says, "Temporal clauses with ל can mark a point in time or an extent in time".
All three of my textbooks say the temporal infinitive construct will have a ב or a כ prefix. Like the examples I gave in Message 142.
ICANT writes:
You can find temporal infinitive constructs in:
Genesis 2:4 בהבראם
Genesis 17:24 בהמלו
Genesis 17:25 בהמלו
Genesis 19:29 בהפך בשחת
Genesis 19:33 בשכבה ובקומה
Genesis 19:35 בשכבה ובקומה
Genesis 19:17 כהוציאם
Can you give me a rule that says a temporal infinitive construct can be otherwise?
arachnophilia writes:
i was asking you about the specific cases you used, and the temporal relationship between your verbs.
Make up your mind. Do you want to talk about Hebrew or English?
arachnophilia writes:
because you don't see how grammar can be more complicated to explain than it is to use.
I know enough to know that English is the most complicated language ever invented.
I also know that so called scholars have complicated the Ancient Biblical Hebrew language trying to make it an English language with all the parts and pieces of English.
Ancient Biblical Hebrew was a language of simple people of which most could not match our kindergardners, much less a fifth grader.
Paul covered the situation when he said: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by arachnophilia, posted 04-05-2011 11:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 1:09 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 216 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 3:18 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 312 (611166)
04-06-2011 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
04-06-2011 12:47 AM


Utter Nonsense: Expansion
{Crappy content hidden - Adminnemooseus}
ABE:
I know enough to know that English is the most complicated language ever invented.
Since all languages are meant to solve the same problem amongst the same critters it would seem logical to conclude that all languages are equally complex; and this, of course, is exactly the case. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that shows English to be the most complicated language ever 'invented', or even give us some sense of the standard by which you're judging linguistic complexity.
Ancient Biblical Hebrew was a language of simple people of which most could not match our kindergardners, much less a fifth grader.
The people of the ancient world were anything but simple. If you spend time with children, and compare what they know to what was known by the ancients, you will see that there is simply no comparison; few kindergartners, for example, have even a superficial grasp of farming and agricultureeven most modern farmers, dependent on their machinery and technology, could not match wits with the ancients' intimate knowledge of crop growing. So, once again, offering up some evidence of why these folk were 'simple people of which most could not match our kindergardners [sic], much less a fifth grader' might help us understand the reasoning on which you've based these claims.
Jon
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide crappy content.
Edited by Jon, : Expansion
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 12:47 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 3:11 PM Jon has replied
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 4:17 PM Jon has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 214 of 312 (611186)
04-06-2011 2:49 PM


Uses of 'bara in the Torah
I have asked for the uses of ברא in the Torah and no list has been presented. I will present them here. If I overlook any please present them.
Genesis 1:1 בָּרָא
Kal perfect 3pms completed action translation 'created'.
Genesis 1:21 וַיּבְרָא
Kal perfect 3pms, completed action, with conj. 'and', and with prefix 'he'. Translation 'and he created'
Genesis 1:27 וַיּבְרָא
Kal perfect 3pms, completed action, with conj. 'and', and with prefix 'he'. Translation 'and he created'
בָּרָא Kal perfect 3pms completed action translation 'created'.
בָּרָא Kal perfect 3pms completed action translation 'created'.
Genesis 2:3 אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָא
Here we have בָּרָא
Kal perfect 3pms completed action translation 'created'.
And אֲשֶׁר The preposition 'which'.
Translation 'which (subject) created'.
Genesis 2:4 bothers me because according to the rules it is a temporal infinitive construct as it has the בְּ prefix along with the definite article. The problem arises as it has a plural ending to match the object.
Will search for more clarification.
Genesis 5:1 בְּרֹא
According to modern Hebrew with these markings this would be a Piel infinitive noun with a P3M suffix.
These vowel pointings were added by the Masoretes between 700 AD and 1000 AD.
But the Ancient Hebrew did not have vowels as consonants were used.
According to the Ancient Hebrew it would be Kal perfect 3mp, completed action.
Translation 'created'.
The only one who translated it as an infinitive noun was Young in the YNG literal translation.
There was several who translated it as a temporal infinitive construct which would be incorrect, according to the vowel pointings.
Genesis 5:2 בְּרָאָם is listed by modern Hebrew as Past P3M suffix Kal ms3 Pronominal Suffix.
There is no such thing as past tense in Ancient Biblical Hebrew.
In Ancient Hebrew it would be a Kal mp3 verb of completed action.
Translation 'He created them'.
הִבָּרְאָם is listed by modern Hebrew as Past P3M suffix, Piel infinitive noun. It also has the definite article.
In Ancient Hebrew it would be a Kal perfect mp3 verb of completed action with the definite article prefixed.
Translation 'He created them'. Definite article would preceed day.
In Genesis 6:7 אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָאתִי
אֲשֶׁר The preposition 'which'.
Modern Hebrew lists this as Kal perfect s1.
Ancient Hebrew only has masculine and feminine there is no netural.
Ancient Hebrew Kal perfect sm1. Translation 'I have created'.
Translation, 'which I have created'.
Numbers 16:30 יִבְרָא Modern Hebrew lists this as Kal sm3 perfect. It also has a prefix 'he'. Ancient Hebrew agrees. Translation 'created'.
Deut. 4:32 בָּרָא
Modern Hebrew lists this as Kal future 3pms Which would be incomplete action as it has not started yet. Biblical Hebrew has no such tense.
Ancient Hebrew Kal perfect sm3 being completed action.
Translation 'created'.
Ancient Biblical Hebrew did not have tenses as Modern Hebrew does. Verbs were either perfect, completed action or imperfect, imcomplete action.
Ancient Biblical Hebrew did not have vowels as invented by the Masoretes.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 3:44 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 215 of 312 (611189)
04-06-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Jon
04-06-2011 1:09 AM


Re: Utter Nonsense: Expansion
Hi Jon,
Glad to see you are reading the thread.
Jon writes:
or even give us some sense of the standard by which you're judging linguistic complexity.
The proficiency of our high school grads when compared to those of developed nations.
Jon writes:
The people of the ancient world were anything but simple. If you spend time with children, and compare what they know to what was known by the ancients, you will see that there is simply no comparison; few kindergartners, for example, have even a superficial grasp of farming and agricultureeven most modern farmers, dependent on their machinery and technology, could not match wits with the ancients' intimate knowledge of crop growing.
I think I was talking about their use of language.
Have you ever read a copy of the original KJV Bible? Languages change over time, and they don't get simpler.
But since you mentioned farming if they were so brilliant why didn't they invent tractors?
I was raised on a farm in the 1940's when we plowed with mules and horses. We averaged 20 bushels of corn per acre. We got tractors in 1949 and fertilizer became available then we could produce 40 bushels of corn per acre. We could also farm 4 times the amount of land.
Today it is possible to produce 300 bushels of corn per acre.
Things do change.
A quick question. How complex was the language spoken by the American Indian when the pilgrams came to America?
Private message this to me as we are off topic here.
If you would like to join the Hebrew discussion please do.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 1:09 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 3:24 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 4:06 PM ICANT has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 216 of 312 (611191)
04-06-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
04-06-2011 12:47 AM


linguistic conspiracy theories
ICANT writes:
Not according to the bare link you gave me. According to it the lamed is the most used temporal infinitive construct used in the Hebrew language.
no.
It says, "Temporal clauses with ל can mark a point in time or an extent in time".
yes, they can. i don't see how that's relevant, however.
All three of my textbooks say the temporal infinitive construct will have a ב or a כ prefix. Like the examples I gave in Message 142.
okay. and as i'm rather surprised that i didn't drive home in Message 178,
quote:
we are not discussing temporal infinitive constructs. we are discussing verbs that are put into infinitives because they follow temporal nouns or temporal prepositions.
Make up your mind. Do you want to talk about Hebrew or English?
i want to talk hebrew. but there seems to some kind of disconnect here: you seem to think that biblical hebrew is a language no more complicated than we would teach our kindergartners, that being able to use grammar and being able to laboriously describe grammar are the same things, and that this whole business is some kind of conspiracy by 20th century academics, the masoretes, me, and every hebrew speaking person. i think the alternative explanation is far more simple, and thus much more likely to be true:
you just don't know what the heck you're talking about.
so i'm starting with one of these points: the difference between using grammar and being able to explain the rules and all their exceptions.
I know enough to know that English is the most complicated language ever invented.
good. that's a start. it may not be the most complicated language ever invented, but in terms of at least modern spoken languages, it's the hardest to learn. i believe mandarin chinese comes in at a close second (and generally wins when you take the written language into account).
now, for step two, we're going to determine what percentage of that complicated language you actually know. we're going to determine this two ways: looking at what sort of grammar you actually use, and then asking you to explain it.
I also know that so called scholars have complicated the Ancient Biblical Hebrew language trying to make it an English language with all the parts and pieces of English.
no, this is not the case. it might do you well to actually study biblical hebrew -- though you're going to be hard-pressed to find a way to learn it without turning to modern scholars. but please, feel free to find a class. be sure to relate to your professor that you, as a lay-person unfamiliar with the language, think he's making it all up, and everyone who spoke hebrew 3,000 years ago really spoke like a child.
Ancient Biblical Hebrew was a language of simple people of which most could not match our kindergardners, much less a fifth grader.
yeah, no.
Paul covered the situation when he said: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
being able to read hebrew, though, is certainly a start. even paul probably had a better handle on it than you do.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 12:47 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 312 (611193)
04-06-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by ICANT
04-06-2011 3:11 PM


Re: Utter Nonsense: Expansion
The proficiency of our high school grads when compared to those of developed nations.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. How are you measuring the complexity of the language?
Have you ever read a copy of the original KJV Bible?
I'm familiar with the language in the KJV. What about it?
Languages change over time, and they don't get simpler.
Nor do they get more complex.
But since you mentioned farming if they were so brilliant why didn't they invent tractors?
You'll have to make a case for why 'inventing tractors' is the standard by which we should judge the agricultural IQ of farmers.
I was raised on a farm in the 1940's when we plowed with mules and horses. We averaged 20 bushels of corn per acre. We got tractors in 1949 and fertilizer became available then we could produce 40 bushels of corn per acre. We could also farm 4 times the amount of land.
Today it is possible to produce 300 bushels of corn per acre.
Very good for you. But how is this related to the knowledge of the ancients?
How complex was the language spoken by the American Indian when the pilgrams came to America?
As complex as English by all meaningful measures.
Private message this to me as we are off topic here.
I'm not going to PM you a reply to a public discussion; but we are off-topic, and if you'd like to continue with this discussion, please feel free to start a thread and I'll meet you there.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 3:11 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 218 of 312 (611197)
04-06-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by ICANT
04-06-2011 2:49 PM


Re: Uses of 'bara in the Torah
ICANT writes:
I have asked for the uses of ברא in the Torah and no list has been presented. I will present them here. If I overlook any please present them.
i have assumed -- presumably correctly, as demonstrated by this post -- that you have access to a concordance. there are several freely available online. instead of doing a scattershot approach, we have instead been discussing salient examples. i will continue that approach: the examples that aren't relevant aren't relevant.
Genesis 1:1 בָּרָא
Kal perfect 3pms completed action translation 'created'.
this, of course, is the example under discussion. the nest several follow the same basic verb form and vowel pointing, though of course, are used in a different grammatical context.
Genesis 2:4 bothers me because according to the rules it is a temporal infinitive construct as it has the בְּ prefix along with the definite article. The problem arises as it has a plural ending to match the object.
Will search for more clarification.
i suggest searching this thread. for instance, in Message 148, i write:
quote:
But the author of Genesis did use בהבראם an infinitive construct in Genesis 2:4 so he was very capable of using them.
*sigh*
no, ICANT. you really, actually have to look at the verse and read it. you can't just pull one specific usage out of it's grammatical context, and expect it to apply universally. so, let's look at the genesis 2:4, shall we?
quote:
אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם
this is the first half of the verse. notice that this is not taking the place of a subordinate clause. the infinitive construct has two peculiarities:
  1. it has a prepositional prefix, ב, attached to it, that indicates the temporal sense. as we've seen repeatedly in genesis 5:1, this is not not needed when the temporal sense is handled by something else, such as עד, ביום, or even בראשית
  2. it has a pronominal suffix, ם, attached to it, that means "their". as detailed in Message 95, and Message 126 and onward, this is acting as the absolute. it is not needed in genesis 1:1, because the absolute there is not a pronoun, but אלהים
further, as i explained in Message 94, genesis 2:4 is written in flopped parallel. here is the other half of the verse:
quote:
בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
note the temporal-infinitive construct chain, being used as a subordinate clause. if it works for one half, it should work for the other.
it is not a "plural ending", but rather, a pronominal suffix. it is the object of the infinitive.
Genesis 5:1 בְּרֹא
According to modern Hebrew with these markings this would be a Piel infinitive noun with a P3M suffix.
These vowel pointings were added by the Masoretes between 700 AD and 1000 AD.
But the Ancient Hebrew did not have vowels as consonants were used.
According to the Ancient Hebrew it would be Kal perfect 3mp, completed action.
err, no. without vowel pointings it could just as easily be either. you have to look at the grammatical context: it's a subordinate clause. an infinitive, in hebrew, is the only reading that makes any sense whatsoever. note, however, that this is most easily translated into english as a perfect verb. i figured i'd put that out there before you go running off again on the "you're making it english" tangent. in any case, you should also really get off the conspiracy nonsense. it' getting very tiresome.
The only one who translated it as an infinitive noun was Young in the YNG literal translation.
again, translated best into english as a perfect verb. the literal hebrew says something to the extent of, "in the day of god creating man..." which tends to render better as "when god created man..." english and hebrew do not work the same way, and i have never argued that they do. much to the dismay of your strawmen. rather, i will continue to explain the best i can in translation why some things work they way they do.
There was several who translated it as a temporal infinitive construct which would be incorrect, according to the vowel pointings.
no, that would be fine.
Genesis 5:2 בְּרָאָם is listed by modern Hebrew as Past P3M suffix Kal ms3 Pronominal Suffix.
There is no such thing as past tense in Ancient Biblical Hebrew.
this is a good sign that you should learn some hebrew, and not simply trust your textbooks. in an case, בְּיוֹם, הִבָּרְאָם is clearly a temporal clause, and the verb is rather clearly an infinitive. surpise, i know. but if one is, the other should be too.
In Ancient Hebrew it would be a Kal mp3 verb of completed action.
Translation 'He created them'.
uh, no. you mean "in english". it translates into english as a simple perfect verb: "created", as in "(when) they were created". however, the hebrew says, literally, "in the day of when their creating". which is ugly, but hebrew isn't english. it renders more nicely as "when they were created".
Translation 'He created them'. Definite article would preceed day.
yes, because the two are in construct.
Ancient Biblical Hebrew did not have tenses as Modern Hebrew does. Verbs were either perfect, completed action or imperfect, imcomplete action.
...or infinitives. any of those tenses could be used with any stem.
Ancient Biblical Hebrew did not have vowels as invented by the Masoretes.
ancient didn't have vowel points. i promise you they had vowels, as language is generally very hard to speak without vowels. the vowel points or niqud (or niqudot) were devised as a way to record the pronunciation, so that inexperienced readers would know your things should be pronounced. they were not some conspiracy designed to make your reading of the text inconvenient -- they simply told how the text was already being read. these vowel points do not shape the verbs: the usage of the verb shapes which vowels are recorded.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 2:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 11:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 219 of 312 (611205)
04-06-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by ICANT
04-06-2011 3:11 PM


Re: Utter Nonsense: Expansion
Jon writes:
or even give us some sense of the standard by which you're judging linguistic complexity.
ICANT writes:
The proficiency of our high school grads when compared to those of developed nations.
whooooboy do you need to read some high school essays. you might discover that, for instance, english is apparently a language dominated by simple subject-passive verb-adjective and subject active verb-object sentences, and other forms are quite rare indeed. you would really be surprised with what gets out of high school.
however, when you select one of our most highly-praised authors in the english language, and compare... well. maybe the shakespeare scholars are all making it up, and he really wrote like someone who nearly dropped out of high school.
yes, this is a valid comparison. the bible is the seminal and highest praised work of biblical hebrew. it is a collection that contains some of the most poetic works of literary genius in the language -- and you think a kindergartner could have written it. and frankly, that's pretty fucking insulting to the authors of the bible.
really, as someone who professes to read, study, and adore the bible, you should be ashamed of making such a comparison.
I think I was talking about their use of language.
Have you ever read a copy of the original KJV Bible? Languages change over time, and they don't get simpler.
...have you read the KJV bible, and compared to a more recent bible? i think you'll find that the more recent bibles are a good deal more simplistic in their language. as i suggested above, compare shakespeare to, well, anything. this is, indeed, an apt analogy -- the 1611 KJV would have been translated and penned by shakespeare's contemporaries. some have even suggested that shakespeare himself is responsible for the wording of the psalms.
on the other hand, english on the whole has gotten more complicated. this is due in large part to a modern and post-modern multi-cultural world, where english is the lingua franca (to abuse a phrase). it's spoken in many countries as a second language, and here in america, we have and have had a great many immigrants from a great many places. this means that new words and phrases and grammatical rules are added the language, and it quickly evolves.
but, as i keep pointing out, hebrew is not english. biblical hebrew essentially died with the bible. it wasn't used by an actual population from about the end of the old testament period (~500 BC), until 1948, except by rabbis (like rashi). nobody spoke it, and it wasn't anywhere close to the lingua franca: greek was. the group that still used the language was insular and exclusive. when it came back into realistic usage by a real population, a group of scholars sat down and simplified the rules, and made decisions about words and phrases would and wouldn't be in the language. this panel still regulates the language -- this is actually pretty common in languages other than english.
so hebrew really wasn't subject to evolutionary factors that english has been. they only time period in which the language did evolve in a multicultural way was actually during the biblical period, thanks to influence from the surrounding nations. and so biblical hebrew is actually more complex than modern hebrew. i have given you examples above (ie: pronominal suffixes). we can even tell earlier works from the later works because the grammatical style gets a good deal more complex. the truly sad part about this is that the torah is one of the simpler works.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 3:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 8:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 220 of 312 (611206)
04-06-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Jon
04-06-2011 1:09 AM


Re: Utter Nonsense: Expansion
Jon writes:
{Crappy content hidden - Adminnemooseus}
MOOOOOOOOOOSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since all languages are meant to solve the same problem amongst the same critters it would seem logical to conclude that all languages are equally complex; and this, of course, is exactly the case. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that shows English to be the most complicated language ever 'invented', or even give us some sense of the standard by which you're judging linguistic complexity.
it is the hardest to learn. this is mostly because we don't really have good consistent rules about things -- because we borrow so much from other languages.
The people of the ancient world were anything but simple. If you spend time with children, and compare what they know to what was known by the ancients, you will see that there is simply no comparison; few kindergartners, for example, have even a superficial grasp of farming and agriculture...
to be fair, i don't either. nor do most adults. or, as you point out, most farmers reliant on machines. the nature of technology is that it scaffolds knowledge. we're all standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.
i'm not sure that this is a fair comparison to language, however. especially regarding children. i work with children, and i remember being a child. and for the most part, i find them brighter than adults give them credit for. however, the difference between using and explaining grammar is probably most apparent in children. you'll find that most elementary school grammar textbooks spend many chapters explaining certain concepts, and the students spend months learning certain concepts, most of which they undoubtedly already use.
for instance, here is a grade one (age six or so) grammar excercise:
note that it uses "naming word" instead of "noun". now, do we think that age six, children use nouns? of course they do. they might not know what they're called. they might not understand what makes one noun a subject and another an object -- we haven't even gotten to objects yet. but i promise you that they use them.
ICANT doesn't seem to comprehend this disparity.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 1:09 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 8:49 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 221 of 312 (611264)
04-06-2011 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by arachnophilia
04-06-2011 4:06 PM


Re: Ancient Hebrew of Torah
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
the truly sad part about this is that the torah is one of the simpler works.
Glad to see you admit that the Torah was a simpler work.
Just remember I haven't been talking about the rest of the OT only the Torah.
And the Torah was written some 500 years prior to the Psalms.
Check an original KJV Bible and compare it to the KJV Bible used today. Both are English but there is a lot of difference in them.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 4:06 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 8:50 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 224 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 8:54 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 225 by jar, posted 04-06-2011 8:57 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 312 (611269)
04-06-2011 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by arachnophilia
04-06-2011 4:17 PM


Re: Utter Nonsense: Expansion
it is the hardest to learn.
Sorry, but all the evidence indicates that children learn their parents' language with roughly the same amount of difficulty and in roughly the same amount of time, whether it's English or Quechua.
this is mostly because we don't really have good consistent rules about things ...
The rules in English are as good as in any other language.
however, the difference between using and explaining grammar is probably most apparent in children. you'll find that most elementary school grammar textbooks spend many chapters explaining certain concepts, and the students spend months learning certain concepts, most of which they undoubtedly already use.
Well, this is a different issue; you're getting into artificially modified language, which, like anything intentionally invented by humans, can vary in complexity and difficulty to learn, cf. making a wheel versus building a computer.
ICANT doesn't seem to comprehend this disparity.
I haven't followed much of your debate, but in what way is understanding the difference between using grammar and describing grammar relevant to the argument?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 4:17 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 9:02 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 312 (611270)
04-06-2011 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by ICANT
04-06-2011 8:34 PM


Re: Ancient Hebrew of Torah
Check an original KJV Bible and compare it to the KJV Bible used today. Both are English but there is a lot of difference in them.
Such as?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 8:34 PM ICANT has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 224 of 312 (611271)
04-06-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by ICANT
04-06-2011 8:34 PM


KJV vs KJV
ICANT writes:
Glad to see you admit that the Torah was a simpler work.
Just remember I haven't been talking about the rest of the OT only the Torah.
And the Torah was written some 500 years prior to the Psalms.
in comparison to later biblical works. not in comparison to elementary school.
Check an original KJV Bible and compare it to the KJV Bible used today. Both are English but there is a lot of difference in them.
the KJV is the KJV is the KJV. the KJV printed in 1611 is identical to the KJV you can find free on in the internet today in terms of translation (language, grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc). the only thing that differs, of course, is the typesetting and spelling.
for instances, editions from the 1600's tend to us "ſ" in place of "s" except for the second "s" in pair, or the end of a word. and there are a few extra "e"s here and there. this is quite common for manuscripts of the era -- shakespeare's plays are all printed the same in their quarto/folio editions.
so, where the 1611 editions say,
quote:
IN the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was with-out forme, and voyd, and darke-neſſe was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God ſaid, Let there be light: and there was light.
whereas the newer printings say:
quote:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
yup, both are english. both are modern english. one uses antiquated spelling. ho. hum.
Edited by arachnophilia, : unintentionally typoed to the correct spelling.
Edited by arachnophilia, : ſ for f, for jon.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 8:34 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 9:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 225 of 312 (611272)
04-06-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by ICANT
04-06-2011 8:34 PM


Re: Ancient Hebrew of Torah
ICANT writes:
Check an original KJV Bible and compare it to the KJV Bible used today. Both are English but there is a lot of difference in them.
God Bless,
Beg your pardon?
1611 KJV Genesis 1 writes:
1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.
5 And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament; and diuided the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters, which were aboue the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament, Heauen: and the euening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters vnder the heauen be gathered together vnto one place, and let the dry land appeare: and it was so.
10 And God called the drie land, Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called hee, Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, the herbe yeelding seed, and the fruit tree, yeelding fruit after his kinde, whose seed is in it selfe, vpon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought foorth grasse, and herbe yeelding seed after his kinde, and the tree yeelding fruit, whose seed was in it selfe, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the euening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there bee lights in the firmament of the heauen, to diuide the day from the night: and let them be for signes and for seasons, and for dayes and yeeres.
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the starres also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth:
18 And to rule ouer the day, and ouer the night, and to diuide the light from the darkenesse: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the euening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring foorth aboundantly the mouing creature that hath life, and foule that may flie aboue the earth in the open firmament of heauen.
21 And God created great whales, and euery liuing creature that moueth, which the waters brought forth aboundantly after their kinde, and euery winged foule after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and fill the waters in the Seas, and let foule multiply in the earth.
23 And the euening and the morning were the fift day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the liuing creature after his kinde, cattell, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kinde: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kinde, and cattell after their kinde, and euery thing that creepeth vpon the earth, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let vs make man in our Image, after our likenesse: and let them haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer the cattell, and ouer all the earth, and ouer euery creeping thing that creepeth vpon the earth.
27 So God created man in his owne Image, in the Image of God created hee him; male and female created hee them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said vnto them, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer euery liuing thing that mooueth vpon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I haue giuen you euery herbe bearing seede, which is vpon the face of all the earth, and euery tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yeelding seed, to you it shall be for meat:
30 And to euery beast of the earth, and to euery foule of the aire, and to euery thing that creepeth vpon the earth, wherein there is life, I haue giuen euery greene herbe for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw euery thing that hee had made: and behold, it was very good. And the euening and the morning were the sixth day.
Current KJV Genesis 1 writes:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Doesn't look like much difference.
You have actually read the Bible haven't you?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by ICANT, posted 04-06-2011 8:34 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 9:12 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024