[b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47 - Suffix -UT
Isaac Fried
if at math.bu.edu
Wed Nov 28 23:50:16 EST 2007
David,
You are saying
"Isaac, whenever I see a 'u' and an 'i' I see a vowel -- not
necessary a person-number-gender (PNG) inflection. I don't know why
you say I see it when I don't, esp. when I keep pointing out that
this is so."
Of course you see --- God blessed you with eyesight. But you fail, I
am afraid, to understand what you are seeing.
The rest is a corollary to the above.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:48 PM, David Kummerow wrote:
> Hi Isaac,
>
> See comments below:
>
>
>> David,
>> Whenever you look at an U and an I [also O and E] in a Hebrew word
>> you see a universal identity marker [also known as a personal
>> pronoun], invariably.
>
> Isaac, whenever I see a 'u' and an 'i' I see a vowel -- not
> necessary a person-number-gender (PNG) inflection. I don't know why
> you say I see it when I don't, esp. when I keep pointing out that
> this is so.
>
>
> If T is not radical, then it is a personal pronoun,
>> invariably. I have said this repeatedly on this list [also, of
>> course, in my book, which can be seen in its entirety at
>> www.hebrewetymology.com <http://www.hebrewetymology.com>].
>
> That is simply false and this type of mistake lies at the very
> heart of your erroneous methodology. /t/ as a phoneme in BH is open
> to be used: 1) within the 'root' for any given word; 2) within the
> paradigm of independent personal pronouns; 3) as verbal and nominal
> marking of PNG; and 4) within any other morpheme with various
> functions, eg -ut. So basically anywhere. It seems to me you do not
> understand what phonemic status entails. /t/ as a phoneme is not
> constrained to equate solely to either a 'root' letter or a marker
> of PNG. The fact that you insist this is so is a mystery to me. You
> attempt some sort of advanced linguistic analysis of Hebrew, yet
> you seem to not have a sufficient grasp of foundational linguistic
> methodology.
>
>> It is for illustrative purposes only that I specifically read -U-
>> as HU), and -I- as HI). Consider the example of $-U-LAX, $AL-U-AX,
>> and $ALX-U, of the root $LX, 'send'. Even though the latter means
>> 'THEY have sent' I permit myself to read it as $ALX-HU) by virtue
>> of the universality of U.
>
> There is no sense to 'illustrative purposes' if it is just plain
> wrong. In any case, there is nothing 'universal' about 'u'. As a
> vowel, it is not constrained for use simply as a marker of PNG. The
> phonemic status of /u/ dictates that this is so. It is secondary to
> this that this vowel is used in some situations as a marker of PNG.
> Moreover, I think $-U-LAX and $AL-U-AX are figments of your
> imagination: they form no part of the paradigm for $LX. You see PNG
> marking where morphemes semantically indicate something entirely
> different -- but now in this case you're even adding vowels in for
> extra pronouns! Once you begin to operate with the methodology you
> do, it seems there's no end to how many pronouns you can 'find'!
>
>> I am preparing now a reply to Kenneth Greifer in which I will
>> elaborate on this in some greater detail. Isaac Fried, Boston
>> University
>
> I wish you wouldn't. We all know what you think, and since it has
> no basis in reality it is better you kept your views to yourself to
> save tiring the list with any more of this.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list