Product Description

Genesis II supports a Mother Tongue thesis, and the Bible also claims that Adam named the animals. This may seem difficult to accept, but then why do the translations of the following animals' names: Skunk, Gopher, Giraffe and Horse actually have corresponding meanings in Biblical Hebrew, such as: Stinker, Digger, Neck and Plower? This landmark book features overwhelming data suggesting that the roots of all human words are universal, and that words have related synonyms and antonyms that must have been intelligently engineered . The current hypothesis that language evolved from grunting ape-men may seem like the flat earth theory, after reading this book. Ideal for word buffs and anyone learning Hebrew vocabulary.

EXCERPT: In the beginning were these words. Come with me on an archeological dig. Let us remove the sands of millennia. We are deep in the valley of Shinar, reconstructing the Tower of Babel-one brick, one word at a time.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #130735 in Books
• Published on: 2001-02
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 320 pages

From the Back Cover
THE WORD is a unique reference text that traces most English words back to their ultimate origin in Biblical Hebrew. More than ten years of original research reveals a bold new vision of the superbly engineered dynamics of human language.

About the Author
Isaac Elchanan Mozeson taught English at Yeshiva University, where he received his B.A., and attended N.Y.U. where he did his Doctoral studies. He has authored books on language, including a dictionary of English Slang (Putnam), Poetry, Biblical & Modern Jewish History, and is on the staff of Kirkus Review. He lives with his wife and children in Northern New Jersey.

Customer Reviews

I must take the negative side of this argument
It is interesting to note how the reviews of this work fall neatly into two camps, viz., rave reviews from persons ignorant of linguistics vice dreadful reviews from persons knowledgeable of linguistics. One would have hoped that an Amazon review page would not degenerate into a shouting match, whereby the happy ignorami can up the "star count" by submitting more essays than the unhappy literati, but hope springs eternal.

Mozeson's thesis is preposterous and his "analytical" techniques are a randomized grab bag of whatever suits him offhand. As a critic from the Ukraine pointed out above, the triconsonantal pattern that underlies the structure of many Semitic word families, plus more than a bit of phonologic license with phonemes that are rather unrelated but--per the "soundex" algorithm, at any rate--are "of a feather," empowers one to draw parallels between anything and anything. To further trivialize Mozeson's "research," Hebrew has only a small set of consonants in the first place--just take a look at, oh, Thai or Hindi, for throat-vexing alternatives!

Spare yourselves from such foolish approaches. If you want to study linguistics, then study linguistics. Mozeson is all wet. As a beloved Turkish engineering professor once taught me, "Not every man who has a mustache is your father."

Substantial Evidence
This book is simply amazing. It is much more than a dictionary that reveals English has roots in Hebrew (or "Edenics" as the author likes to call it). But more importantly it reveals that other languages have potential roots in Hebrew. It provides actual words as evidence and gives details of roots and concepts. Linguists will undoubtedly hate this book because it dismisses half of their theories. After reading this book, you will begin to wonder and believe that all languages originated from one. Just like all people originated from one family. As time developed languages evolved and differentiated, but a careful inspection can potentially unmask their origin. This is what the author has done with English words originally believed to have etymologies of Latin. The author provides so much evidence (and those familiar with Hebrew can attest) that the reader must either provide alternative explanation or accept the theory. I have started to analyze some Farsi words and have already established the connection of countless words to Hebrew (Even words that are not believed to be of "Arabic" etymology). Scientists and linguists who have formed their ideology and must protect their theories will undoubtedly deny these points until a future time where more brave and advanced scientist all start to see how all languages must have originated from one language (that being Hebrew). Isaac Mozeson is a revolutionary and his theories will one day be accepted.

Interesting, but very questionable
The book is certainly interesting and worth reading, offering fresh insights into the English etymology. However, it's analysis is definitely not without flaws.

> Some imagination is required to find lip/nose images in Hebrew letters, corresponding to their pronounciation, although the suggestion is daring. Besides, old Phoenician Hebrew letters are quite different.

> If we consider possible wide substitutions, like R-L-N-(M) and work with three basic vowels (or even no vowels at all), add letters' reversal and omission, many three-letter roots are likely to coincide strictly by chance. The odds are only enhanced by the ambiguity of Latin transliteration and sometimes variant writing in Hebrew. Author also feels free to choose the suitable spelling either of modern or ancient English. Allow for the meaning to be not exactly the same, but related, and quite a lot of English words would find their equivalents in the much smaller Hebrew dictionary. Given such assumptions, it's overall plausible to find about a quarter of active English words related to Hebrew roots.

> Common linguistic approach is to analyze transformation of the groups of words, not of the single words. This book apparently lacks such analysis either for phonetical groups or those related by meaning. For example, it stresses the origin of giraffe and skunk words, but not of the animals comprehensively.

> Although the author traces similarities from Hebrew, this is not self-evident. Both Hebrew and English may inherit it from a source language, be it theoretical IE or actual bablit.

> Some very important hypothesis are not elaborated upon. Thus, the author asserts phonetical relation of Hebrew synonyms and antonyms. This is a bold assumption, and would take more than a single pair of words to convince a reasonable person.