Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47 - Suffix -UT

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47 - Suffix -UT
  • Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:56:45 -0500

David,

You have said

"Actually, I said, and have said, a lot more than that."

I know. I would greatly prefer, though, to stay focused on one thing at a time.

I have said it often and very clearly before, and I will say it again:

Every U and I in a Hebrew word is a universal identity marker [aka personal pronoun], invariably.

There is no such thing in Hebrew as a "vowel", except for A. The idea of the vowel is an alien carry-over into Hebrew from Indo-European grammar.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:06 AM, David Kummerow wrote:


Hi Isaac,

Actually, I said, and have said, a lot more than that.

Your failure to address such foundational issues as raised is telling. As I said before, I will no longer waste my time responding unless you choose to address mine and others' arguments. I have better things to do than interact with nonsense ideas having no linguistic basis.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


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.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page