Re: PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars ...

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 <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>

On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:41:13 -0700, HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb>

      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