[b-hebrew] theories and standards

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Mon May 18 10:34:43 EDT 2009


It is based on the assumption (I believe commonly accepted) that  man  
spoke as soon as he could.

If you accept the bi-consonantal theory, then you need to explain  
what is being  added to complete the root to tri-consonantal form. If  
this addition is meaningful, then it is a one-consonant root.

There is no denying that there are Hebrew words of a single-consonant  
root, to wit: AB, BA, EM, EL, AT, AX. AG, GA, DA, ZA, RA, BB, GG, DD,  
CC, NN, SS, LL, RR, XX.

Isaac Fried Boston University

On May 18, 2009, at 10:06 AM, James Read wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Quoting Isaac Fried <if at math.bu.edu>:
>
>> 1. ALEP-ox, BET-house, etc. is a (relatively) modern initiative for
>> the edification and entertainment of children.
>
> This is a genuine possibility. We still do that kind of thing to  
> this day.
>
>
>> 2. Language preceded the alphabet by about 28,000 years.
>>
>
> This, however, has to be the most unsubstantiated comment of the  
> century. All we know about language is that its written form  
> appeared simultaneously in different parts of the world near large  
> rivers, period. Anything beyond that is complete and total  
> speculation based on...nothing.
>
> James Christian
>
>
>> Isaac Fried Boston University
>>
>> On May 18, 2009, at 9:21 AM, James Read wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I know. We've done this before. You postulate that the    
>>> consonants have a meaning and that roots are composites of  
>>> these   basic meanings.
>>>
>>> I think your theory would have more credence if the alphabet  
>>> were   based on them rather than on a oxes head, a house etc. etc.
>>>
>>> James Christian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting Isaac Fried <if at math.bu.edu>:
>>>
>>>> It was in my opinion uni-consonantal.
>>>>
>>>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>
>
> -- 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list