[b-hebrew] language level
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Sun Jan 30 09:49:43 EST 2011
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer at sc.rr.com> wrote:
> Why tri-phonemic? Because the written text is a descriptive representation
> of the vocalization of the oral text, and analysis has indicated that the
> language used trilateral roots.
How much of that tri-literal root system is an invention of tradition?
What I noticed as I analyzed words is that for some words, a tri-literal
root is not attested in Tanakh, or found only in a conjugation where one
would expect to find an added letter, such as a hiphil. Then there are a few
words where analysis indicates that they originally had quadrilitieral
roots. But by far from all historical evidence, the majority of Biblical
Hebrew words can be traced to triliteral roots.
> For Isaac’s proposal,
His proposal is not Hebrew nor attested to in any evidence from historical
sources. Further, it is contradicted by the evidence that has been found. I
have stopped responding to his posts, in fact usually do not read them, as a
waste in time. His proposal is idiosyncratic and based on a linguistic
fallacy called the etymological fallacy.
> As for your reconstitution statement, the core words were not changed.
> Grammar was, adopting more of an Indo-European flavor, but the base
> vocabulary remained. Did pronunciation differ from the original? Perhaps,
> but that would be in the vowels and perhaps idiomatic pronunciation of
> certain consonants. Nothing occurred that would have changed the number of
> letter/consonantal phonemes in the roots.
The above paragraph deals with modern Hebrew, which is outside
the purview of this group.
> Paul Zellmer
> Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew