Shalom, I'd just like to address some of the points stated on your pages about Edenics.
Firstly, it's well known amongst Semitists that the Hebrew language is an 'evolved' language, and that it has lost much of the original proto-Semitic features, which we find present in other languages, especially Ugaritic and Arabic. The first issue is that of phonology, the Hebrew language has lost many of the original Semitic sounds such as thaa (merged into shin) and thal (merged into zayn) and ghayin (merged into ayin) and Haa (merged into Khaa) etc. So for instance in your page about animal names, you mention that Aramaic corrupts the Hebrew shin into taa, whereas in reality both Hebrew and Aramaic merge (corrupt is not a nice word in comparative linguistics) the original Semitic thaa into other letters. Hebrew merges thaa into shin and Aramaic merges thaa into taa. Since both Arabic and Ugaritic retain the original thaa phoneme, we find they both use this same letter for ox (th-r in Ugaritic and thor in Arabic, the middle vowel unknown for Ugaritic). We find this phenomenon even causes entirely different words to be merged into one word in Hebrew, so for instance the Semitic root for plow is H-r-th. So in Ugaritic we have H-r-th, in Arabic Haratha, whilst in Hebrew we have Kharash (the Haa has merged into Khaa and the thaa has merged into shin). But wait, Hebrew has two meanings for the root Kharash, the other meaning is to be silent. This is because there's another Semitic root Kh-r-s which means to be silent. In Hebrew sin and shin have also switched places, so we have in Hebrew Kharash for being silent also, which in Arabic is Kharasa. The second issue is that of grammar. The Hebrew language has almost completely lost the case system, which only remains in vestiges of some words. Arabic is the only surviving Semitic language which still retains the proto-Semitic case system. Likewise for the dual number, which all Semitic languages lost, except for Arabic and Ugaritic again. Only in certain natural-pair nouns do dual cases exist in Hebrew. Although some linguists have shown that in the earlier parts of the Tanakh it's quite possible that some of the verbs still retained the dual, but have been mistaken for plurals. This is not to say Ugaritic and Arabic are perfect languages, they are not, Ugaritic merged sod/dod (as did Hebrew, but Arabic did not) and sin/shin, whilst Arabic merged sin/samek, whilst Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic did not, although modern Hebrew did (phonetically anyway, the separate graphemes still exist). But if the claim is to be made that Hebrew was the first language, then Arabic and Ugaritic must have been prior to first, obviously a logical impossibility :) Comments welcomed. Regards, Abu Rashid. Note: letter names used are mostly Arabic, since Hebrew has no name for most of them.
