1 SHAMASH.ORG /usr/www/wwwhc/listserv/archives/heblang February 2000
2 30 35_Chance correspondences in languages0_15_rturkel@cas.org37_Sun, 20 Feb 2000 03:20:12 -0500 (EST)576_- Not to beat a dead horse, but someone sent me offlist the URL for a very interesting and well-written article with the subject title. It's about twenty pages long, and uses a lot of statistical theory to prove that virtually any two languages, no matter how unrelated, with have a certain small number of chance occurrences of the type described earlier on this list. It was written a year or two ago by one Mark Rosenfelder in response to "... lists of resemblances between far-flung languages ..." posted on sci.lang. He also gives a computer program to make some of [...]
33 210 40_RE: BIN (may) Never mean BEN! --> idioms11_Cohen, Izzy18_Izzy_Cohen@bmc.com31_Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:52:48 -0600446_ISO-8859-1 Rick Turkel, Sid Kasten, Jerry Blaz, et al.<br><br>I will (politely) ignore Rick's comment about deriving English from Hebrew since I have *never* held that position.<br><br>Rick wrote: > ... accepted linguistic theory ... requires (a) systematic > sound changes ... to establish historical relationships > between languages, and (b) some historical period of contact > between two language communities to postulate borrowing ... [...]
244 21 39_Re: Chance correspondences in languages7_Sefarad21_sefarad@geocities.com31_Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:17:15 -0500397_US-ASCII Many of the words in the article you recommended have a complete different root and origin. For example the writer list Quechua words that may originated from Hebrew or Hebrew that may came from Quechua(?). I have studied Quechua and other native languages. the root of these words are far away from the root of the Hebrew one. Can we get back to a more productive dialogue? Shalom! [...]
266 34 39_Re: Chance correspondences in languages0_17_AdamLance@aol.com29_Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:40:15 EST426_US-ASCII In a message dated 02/20/2000 12:16:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, sefarad@geocities.com writes:<br><br><< I have studied Quechua and other native languages. the root of these words are far away from the root of the Hebrew one. Can we get back to a more productive dialogue >><br><br>I have a "more productive" question. This is regarding the Hebrew definite article, as compared with the Arabic definite article. [...]
301 33 16_Definite article14_Tsuguya Sasaki15_tsuguya@gol.com31_Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:15:03 +0900609_iso-8859-1 It is easy to notice the seeming resemblance between the Hebrew definite article _ha-_ and its Arabic functional counterpart _'al-_, and it is true that there were those who maintained that _ha-_ and _'al-_ were cognates, but to the best of my limited knowledge of Semitic comparative linguistics, this view does not seem to be supported any more, that is, _ha-_ is NOT from *_hal-_. The more or less accepted view seems to be that _ha-_ is from *_haa-_ of demonstrative nature related etymologically with the Arabic _haadhaa_ 'this'. The gemination of the first consonant of a word after the [...]
335 46 42_Re(2): Chance correspondences in languages0_15_rturkel@cas.org37_Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:41:18 -0500 (EST)546_- AdamLance@aol.com wrote:<br><br>>The article "ha-" is followed by a letter with dagesh hazak (except for >letters that can't have a dagesh) and I noticed that the Arabic article al- >often drops the l and converts the following letter into a tashdid (which I >think is the same as a dagesh), effectively doubling the sound of that letter. > >compare Hashalom (with a dagesh in the "shin") with Assalaam (where the "lam" >drops and the "sin" doubles). > >My question is, does article "ha-" have a missing letter? And if so, is it a >lamed? [...]