There are two ways that languages are related, 1. related by language contact, or mixing or mass borrowing of words or even grammatical features [see Thomason, Language Contact]; 2. related "genetically" when groups split and language changes over time until you have different groups speaking different dialects of the same language [see Ruhlen, The Origin of Language]
I believe in general the evidence that Mozeson [Edenics, The Word, etc..] and his students uncover is due to the spread of Hebrew and Arabic through Theologians traveling the world in the last 2,000 years bringing with them Hebrew and Greek. Many Anglo Saxon words are of Hebrew origin: Love < LB, over < ober < OBR (o for ayin), child < jild* < YLD, earth < erets < ARC /arech/ or /arets/, error < ARR. And on and on, many many words. Some corrections need to be made in Mozeson's work; I don't have the study in front of me but I found a different etymology for 'skull' which is related to words in Greek and Latin which come from Egpytian, which is related to a particular Hebrew word, I do not recall at the moment. I posted the study on historicallinguistics yahoo groups. In the event of languages mixing, at times much vocabulary is lost and new word formations must be developed; so new word formations can only be traced back to particular roots in a given language. But ultimately roots are traceable to their parent language. It may be that a root in one language is derived from a word form that was created in a parent language from another prior root. so it may be difficult to trace many roots back to Hebrew. But Imperial Aramaic and Hebrew clearly have a common parent language. I am going to demonstrate that Egyptian and Hebrew clearly have a common parent language. see peripheralegyptology yahoo group. The nature of word formation of the original language can be reconstructed by following such work as Benner's work. Above other scholars I believe Benner has gotten the logic of the original nature of word formation correct. >From 3000 BC to 2,000 or 1,000 BC languages must have appeared more >genetically related. But from 1,000 BC to 1,000 AD language change must have >been dominated by language contact and mixing. Dave --- In [email protected], "j.rothlan...@..." <j.rothlan...@...> wrote: > > > > I found the forum and website very interesting and wanted to post something > about what brought me to the site and if anyone else was curious about the > connections between some of the original languages such as Chinese and Mayan > in relationship to Hebrew. What I find unique is that if you take a Babel > approach to other languages that did not evolve directly from Hebrew, as > would be expected in a Babel type experience; you find some interesting > things that might lend support to a Biblical approach to history versus the > secular idea that the story is just a fairy tale. > > etc...................
