[Avodah] Choshen

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 04:47:13PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
:> I just meant that if Rashi believes that the pre-Hapelagah language was
:> LhQ and yet the post-Hapelagah new languages have cognate words to LhQ,
:> then clearly the bilbul wasn't complete. Leaving us words that weren't
:> changed beyond recognition.

: Your conclusion only follows if we grant the implicit, and in my view,
: rather dubious, assumption that ante-Dispersion "Lashon Ha'Kodesh" /
: Biblical Hebrew was a static and unchanging language...

Not at all. Cognates require that things didn't drift too far in this
particular word, not that the words are static. After all, cognates are
often found between languages that diverged millenia ago.

I actually would agree that LhQ is not static. And in fact, I would say
that what defines it are the "devarim achadim", the unique view of the
world it imparts on its speakers -- Sapir-Worf style. (Think of what
NewSpeak was intended to accomplish in the novel 1984. Benjamin Whorf's
formulation, quoted on wikipedia: "We dissect nature along lines laid down
by our native language. The categories and types that we isolate from the
world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer
in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscope
flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds -- and this
means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds. We cut nature up,
organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely
because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way --
an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified
in the patterns of our language [...] all observers are not led by the
same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their
linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated".)

I think that's LhQ, and what didn't change from Adam in the evolution
of Tanakhi Hebrew (I won't raise controversy by discussing beyond that).
Devarim achadim. The people building the tower had a single lingua fanca
(safa achas), but it wasn't necessarily Adam's. It is the devarim by
which HQBH "romamtanu mikol halshonos".

:> And so I think it is implicit in Rashi, a statement of a conclusion I drew
:> (that was the point of that post), rather than being only my own belief.

: The above illustrates why I am categorically opposed to ascribing a
: position to Ploni based on logic of the form:
: Ploni asserts X
: X implies Z
: ergo Ploni believes Z

I agree in principal, disagree that it applies here. Complete change of
languages means that none of the words can be compared to the original.

IOW, myu middle line isn't "X implies Z", it's "X necessitates the
falsity of not-X". *Complete* change means no similarity is not due to
correlation. I fail to see where an assumption could be hiding on me.
My deduction might even be true by definition.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha at aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites