Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew
  • Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:43:21 +1000


Dear Isaac,

Again you unfortunately display an ignorance of linguistics which allows you to retain your etymological theories without modification. Of course general linguistics can define meaning/semantics. In fact, I've repeated to you the fact that phonemics articulates a coherent methodology the results of which may be easily reproduced and/or falsified. I see no such thing in your own approach; indeed, it would appear wholly subjective.

Sadly, your "ideas about the structure of the Hebrew word" do not deserve careful consideration. As I've repeatedly demonstrated, your method lacks a reliable linguistic basis. Since you've set out from the beginning with an erroneous methodology and assumptions which have no basis in linguistic reality, your results therefore have no basis in linguistic reality. Your first mistake (other than getting skilled in the linguistic methodology necessary to conduct a work such as yours) was to attribute morphemic status to phonemes. This is the root of the error and from this root grows everything else.

I guess I should take my own advice regarding the above and end my half of the discussion here. My hope is that you will look into the foundational problem with your method, correct it, and move on to more productive and fruitful etymological work. You seem to have much time and energy for such work which many people don't, and it would be fantastic if you could contribute some worthwhile research that does merit careful consideration.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


David,


Yes, but the whole thing is useless or trivial or sheer waste of time. Linguistics requires that the 'linguistic unit' under consideration be first ascertained to be meaningful (and minimal!) to qualify for morpheme status, but it does not tell us how to achieve this knowledge. Once I know the meaning of a certain 'linguistic unit' I don't need linguistics to tell me it is a morpheme. It is what it means to be. This is tautology at its best.

My ideas about the structure of the Hebrew word merit careful consideration, rather than derision. It is pity, but instead of concentrating on Hebrew we waste our time on the barren word inventions and interplays of Indo-European linguistics.


Isaac Fried, Boston University







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page