JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hrvatski Noahid on December 13, 2018, 11:53:19 AM
-
"Modern linguistics does not rule out the possibility that all languages of the world descended from a single language. But the mainstream consensus seems to be an agnostic one: Most think that this hypothesis is not testable, at least not with the current data.
Languages change. More you try to track those changes back in time using scientific methods (comparative and internal reconstruction), less you become certain about the properties of the proto-language.
For instance, now linguists have a pretty clear picture of the properties of the Proto-Indo-European language, the ancestor of English, Spanish, Russian, Hindi an many others, conjectured to be spoken some time between 7th and 4th millennia BC. But there are many unresolved problems and uncertainties.
These uncertainties cause problems in so called long range reconstructions. When you try to apply the comparative method to proto-languages, most of the time you come up with things like "the word for 'foot' must be a consonant followed by a vowel followed by a consonant followed by a vowel (CVCV)". Obviously it doesn't help much.
So, most mainstream linguists seem to be inclined to think that these uncertainties make long range reconstructions unfeasible past a certain point in time. But some linguists do nevertheless work on long range reconstructions using more or less accepted methods. (check here for example)
Besides, we have very good reasons to conclude that Hebrew cannot be the proto-world language. It's a part of the well-studied Semitic language family. It has current (like Arabic) and historical (like Akkadian) relatives. There is ample evidence that together they go back to an older proto-language: Proto-Semitic. And there is also evidence that Proto-Semitic, in turn, goes back to an even older proto-language called Proto-Afroasiatic.
The "convincing" examples you give are not convincing at all. The English word "direction", for instance, has a well established etymology that goes back to Proto-Indo-European, through French and Latin. Those are chance resemblances. If you scan enough words, you're eventually going to come up with some words with somehow similar meanings and that look somehow similar between any two languages. So, this definitely isn't a scientific method. Scientific comparison requires regular correspondences. Many of them. Try to find some material on how Proto-Indo-European was painstakingly reconstructed by linguists with more than a century's work.
In short, no, the Edenics is not rejected because it tries to legitimize something from the Bible. It's rejected simply because there is no scientific evidence that supports Edenics and there is ample scientific evidence that rules it out."
https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/7048/why-is-edenics-not-recognized-as-a-serious-linguistic-theory/7054
-
That's interesting. I'm reading the Edenics book now. I first got it 12 years ago and now I'm reading the whole book. I'm almost done.
(http://lightcatcherbooks.com/Authors/OOS2Bookstore.jpg)
http://lightcatcherbooks.com/Authors/Edenics.htm
I have the first edition.
-
That's interesting. I'm reading the Edenics book now. I first got it 12 years ago and now I'm reading the whole book. I'm almost done.
http://lightcatcherbooks.com/Authors/Edenics.htm
I have the first edition.
I fear that you are reading an unreliable source. It is obvious that the most common English words come from Old English, not Hebrew.