<br /><br />You have clearly never studied Classical Arabic. Or had to come to terms with the mind-bending complexity of just figuring out which of the several separate Japanese words for "to give" is correct in any given context. Russians write humorous short stories about soldiers getting killed while they argue trying to figure out the correct genitive plural of "machine-gun".<br /><br />Every language has its rough patches, which they acquire after 1000s of years of being lived in, as it were, and being afflicted by history. If you want a rational language, learn lojban (http://www.lojban.org/).<br /><br />It has been so patched up and uses so much borrowed bits - it's like one of those country roads they keep repairing - all lumps and bumps! Do other languages have three present tenses or so many ways of expressing what in Latin would be a straight subjunctive phrase? <br />
<br /><br />Now this I must object to! English is no better nor worse equiped to say nothing with many words. Every language can do that. Wasn't there some Roman poet whose poems were adressed to Lalage ("chatterbox")?<br /><br />*partisan jab alert * partisan jab alert * <br />The US president can barely speak at all, and that hardly interferes with his jabbering information-free nonsense.<br />*partisan jab alert * partisan jab alert * <br /><br /> ;D <br /><br />In any case, any native speaker of English who feels it's just a patched together kludge needs to read more Shakespeare.English is a great language for politicians as you can say a lot yet mean nothing!<br />
<br /><br />Be grateful - we have a prime minister who can speak and has never spoken a true word yet! He uses the language as a weapon of mass distraction.<br /><br />Yes, I guess most old languages in places with plenty of invasions and cultural mixing do get fairly "irregular" after a while<br />*partisan jab alert * partisan jab alert * <br />The US president can barely speak at all, and that hardly interferes with his jabbering information-free nonsense.<br />*partisan jab alert * partisan jab alert * <br /><br /> ;D <br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />So long as massoratic signs were additions of later ages, any kind of addition to the god's name must have been regarded blasphemous. As for the fobidding of speaking god's name, it was common taboo for ancients to speak king's or god's name. Calling name of even common people was in the realm of taboo because the ancients belived the name was inseparable part of the owner.<br />As for God's name, I believe it was quite intentional to leave out the vowels, since (I am told) it was forbidden to actually speak God's name and so they never did add those vowels.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 18 guests