Changes

==Differences between Semitic and Indo-European language structure==

==Differences between Semitic and Indo-European language structure==

Unlike Greek, which has an ample vocabulary, and case ending to determine which words are to be read with which words, what parts of speech (subject, object etc.), Semitic languages are contextual language - that is relatively few words but each word having a variety of meanings. This requires knowledge of the literature, and literatures - that is, knowledge of the context to determine the precise meaning  This general rule is somewhat modified with respect to the Arabic language which does have case endings and does have a more replete vocabulary than Hebrew. (There is evidence that Hebrew and Aramaic once did case endings but they had dropped off in time.)  

Unlike Greek, which has an ample vocabulary, and case ending to determine which words are to be read with which words, what parts of speech (subject, object etc.), Semitic languages are contextual language - that is, relatively few words but each word having a variety of meanings. This requires knowledge of the literature, and literatures - that is, knowledge of the context to determine the precise meaning  This general rule is somewhat modified with respect to the Arabic language which does have case endings and does have a more replete vocabulary than Hebrew. (There is evidence that Hebrew and Aramaic once did case endings but they had dropped off in time.)  

Here are examples from Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic showing how case ending help tell which is subject, which is object, etc. thereby leaving the order of the words with respect to each other (syntax) more flexible, and how the lack of case endings require a more precise word order  

Here are examples from Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic showing how case ending help tell which is subject, which is object, etc. thereby leaving the order of the words with respect to each other (syntax) more flexible, and how the lack of case endings require a more precise word order  

Hebrew: "Eesh Elohim" may mean " man is God (a man is God)" or "man of God". (To mean either one, "Eesh" must be placed before "Elohim", already reduing flexibility in syntax). There is nothing at the end of these words to indicate what part of speech they are. So we must look outside to the context to determine whether the meaning is, or probably is, "man is God" or "man of God"  The context decides for us that 'man is God' is highly unlikely and that "man of God"is highly probable.  

Hebrew: "Eesh Elohim" may mean " man is God (a man is God)" or "man of God". (To mean either one, "Eesh" must be placed before "Elohim", already reducing flexibility in syntax). There is nothing at the end of these words to indicate what part of speech they are. So we must look outside to the context to determine whether the meaning is, or probably is, "man is God" or "man of God"  The context decides for us that 'man is God' is highly unlikely and that "man of God"is highly probable.  

[[Greek]]: "anthropos" (man) has "os" attached to the root "anthrop". This "os" tell us that this word is nominative and the subject of the sentence. Theou (of God) has "ou",  meaning "of" attached to the root of "The" meaning God.  So there is no mistaking the meaning of "man of God"  whether we have the word order of "anthropos theou" or "theou anthropos", or even separate the words by other modifying or qualifying words. This allows for a variety of syntactical relations in Greek, and the general context is less determinative for meaning as it is in the Semitic group of languages. In addition, either one, "theou anthropos" or "anthropos theou" is stylisticly correct, or, at least,  if not equally correct, it is for reasons other than being considered now.   

[[Greek]]: "anthropos" (man) has "os" attached to the root "anthrop". This "os" tell us that this word is nominative and the subject of the sentence. Theou (of God) has "ou",  meaning "of" attached to the root of "The" meaning God.  So there is no mistaking the meaning of "man of God"  whether we have the word order of "anthropos theou" or "theou anthropos", or even separate the words by other modifying or qualifying words. This allows for a variety of syntactical relations in Greek, and the general context is less determinative for meaning as it is in the Semitic group of languages. In addition, either one, "theou anthropos" or "anthropos theou" is stylisticly correct, or, at least,  if not equally correct, it is for reasons other than being considered now.