Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang Subject: Re: PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars ... Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 13:19:08 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <9b24e212ac83a2d98faedc6ffbb95b2a@www.novabbs.com> References: <4jbeaj92mhh10v5bons2g8niem2lmuhg0h@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="763896"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="od9foDe1d3X505QGpqKrbB1j6F4qQM01CuXm1pRmyXk"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$pjBNyOGUwt.MXgXM1vQPb.1cHSksgZ0uhOGOH8aWMuZfrS/grHLny X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Posting-User: 3f4f6af5131500dbc63b269e6ae36b2af088a074 Bytes: 6323 Lines: 125 On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 6:01:49 +0000, Ruud Harmsen wrote: > Sun, 28 Jul 2024 15:06:32 +0000: jerry.friedman99@gmail.com > (jerryfriedman) scribeva: > >>On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:29:10 +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote: >> >>> On 2024-07-26, Steve Hayes wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:41:13 -0700, HenHanna >>>>> The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most >>>>>Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters. >>> >>> It's not wrong just because PTD said it. Over on Language Log, the >>> eminent sinologist Victor Mair also keeps pointing out that the >>> Chinese thinking that a Chinese character/syllable equals a word >>> is just not true and that most of the Chinese lexicon is made from >>> a combinations of two morphemes and rendered in two characters. >> >>Mair contributed a chapter to Daniels and Bright, so he was probably >>the source for PTD's knowledge of that. >> >>>> In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field >>>> he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong. >>> >>> But what _is_ PTD's area of actual expertise? Writing systems, I >>> guess, supported by the fact that he co-edited a book on the topic? >> >> >>He's also written a book on writing systems. >> >>https://www.amazon.com/Exploration-Writing-Peter-T-Daniels/ >> >>As you probably noticed, his guest post on Language Log on writing >>systems was well received. >> >>> Semitic languages, maybe--or am I already misled by my own total >>> ignorance there? >> >>He knows a lot more than I do about all of the Semitic languages >>except Hebrew, but on the other hand he wrote >> >>'Hebrew does not have subordinating conjunctions. It uses parataxis, not >>hypotaxis. KJV tried to translate literally, word by word, so "and" was >>used >>wherever wa-(and allomorphs) appeared.' >> >>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/MZ7qGDVppiU/m/4h_E2sqqBAAJ >> >>The subject was the King James Bible, but it was still misleading >>not to say that modern Hebrew has several subordinating conjunctions >>and uses them often. > > He was talking about Biblical Hebrew. Now you start about Modern > Hebrew. Not the same grammar. > > Initial waw in Biblical Hebrew was indeed mistranslated as "and" in > English and "en" in Dutch etc., because in reality it was an aspect > and tense reversing prefix or some such: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vav-consecutive I don't think it's a mistranslation in most situations, because as the Wikipedia article, it has the conjunctive meaning in addition to changing the tense or aspect. You could make a case that it is a mistranslation at the beginning of a narrative. Actually the 1611 King James translators agreed in at least one place. A literal translation of Joshua 1:1 would begin "And it was after the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh," but the KJV had "Nowe after the death of Moses the seruant of the Lord". >>(Note how effectively that could lead to an >>argument. "That doesn't apply at all to modern Hebrew." "The >>subject is obviously Biblical Hebrew." "But...") > > There you have it. Yes, classic PTD. With one word ("Biblical") he could have avoided misleading anyone or starting an argument. But the main point is below. >>More to the point, the statement is not true even of Biblical Hebrew. >>It has /fewer/ subordinating conjunctions than modern European >>languages and uses hypotaxis /less/, but it does use hypotaxis. For >>instance >> >>'asher or she- 'that, which, what': "I am that I am" >> >>ki 'that, because, when': "And God blessed the seventh day, and >>sanctified >>it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created >>and made.' (The "which" there is 'asher again.) > > This is far beyond me, so I have no take on it. It's quite simple. Biblical Hebrew had subordinating conjunctions and subordinate clauses, contrary to PTD's flat statement. >>k- 'like, as': "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth >>my soul after thee, O God." >> >>l-ma`an 'so that': "Therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may >>live." >> >>The statement that the KJV used "and" whenever "wa-" appeared is >>very close to true, I believe. However "Therefore" in "Therefore >>choose life" is u-, an allomorph of wa-, as PTD put it. (I just noticed >>that.) > > So he did (and does) have knowledge of Hebrew grammar after all. Some knowledge. "A little learning is a dangerous thing." I'm by no means an expert on Hebrew, much less Biblical Hebrew, but I'm capable of recognizing obvious facts and I have some idea of the limits of my knowledge. > BTW, isn´t it quite impolite to gossip about someone who himself > cannot be present to comment if he so chose? I would have disagreed with him about this and other things at the time if he had handled disagreement in a decent way and had shown that he could learn from correction. -- Jerry Friedman