Sunday, June 05, 2005

A Comment on Semitic Verbs (and other things)

In the post below I mention "Semitic verbs" or those who study them in what may be construed to be a less than complimentary fashion. I was merely using the term to refer to a certain kind of attitude... And yes, we get the same thing in computer science: that "object-oriented", "user-friendly", "internet-based", "plug-and-play" world where the O's are always big and the paychecks are...

Uh, well, perhaps not. Actually it is good for me to mention this. "Big O" is the term we use to indicate something called the "complexity" of a problem: it is supposed to measure how long the theoretical solution will take. Some fanatics have erected altars to it. Others treat it as heresy. (I am squarely on the fence, for I think both are right, and so I am rejected by both camps!)

Anyhow, long before I began playing with computers I played with Egyptian hieroglyphics. (I have yet to play with Hebrew, though I have a coloring book of the letters.) Back in 1972 I received a large tome from my father: Egyptian Grammar by Sir Alan Gardiner, who wrote:
The Egyptian language is related, not only to the Semitic tongues (Hebrew, Arabic, aramaic, Babylonian, &c.) but also to the East African languages (Galla, Somali, &c.) and the Berber idioms of North Africa. Its connexion with the latter groups, together known as the Hamitic family, is a very thorny subject, but the relationship to the Semitic tongues can be fairly accurately defined. In general structure the similarity is very great: Egyptian shares the principal peculiarity of Semitic in that its word-stems consist of combinations of consonants, as a rule three in nmumber, which are theoretically at least unchangeable. Grammatical inflexion and minor variations of meaning are contrived mainly by ringing the changes on the internal vowels...
[Egyptian Grammar 2]

Very interesting. Now wait, don't get all jumpy, here. Maybe we ALL ought to rejoice in the Semitic tongue! For that means, in that language,


Major goosebumps.

There is something else that works that way: DNA. God puts the same Semitic word-construct into protein formation: for THREE nucleotides are translated (by the ribosome) into ONE amino acid (the building block of protein.)

Hey, St. John, looks like molecular biology supports your line about "the Word was made flesh"...


At 05 June, 2005 21:07, Blogger Marc the polar bear said...

Jesus Christ is the WORD.

Scripture is the word about the WORD.

Whether or not there is a divine language, it does make sense that some forms of language better communicate the divine realities to our limited human intellect.

Your observation on the Egyptian language points to the work of the Trinity in creation, as does your comment on DNA. When you really start looking at the world, God becomes more and more evident. And true science will illustrate that. Too bad we dont have many scientists, but rather scientismists with their secular dogmas and sacred bovines (the latter which really produce a lot of fecal contemplations.) :-)

At 05 June, 2005 21:09, Blogger Marc the polar bear said...

Oh yes, back to the language bit and my first comment therein.

In the Latin Church, praying in Latin is ontologically superior, all other things considered. :-)

At 06 June, 2005 11:16, Blogger Dr. Thursday said...

RE "divine language" - we'll be getting to that kind of question as we proceed into our discussion on prayer. But we will also get into the varieties of human language, which is all the more we know about.

And yes, all His works of art bear His signature.


Post a Comment

<< Home