Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] PTX vs PQX

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] PTX vs PQX
  • Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:16:48 -0400

1. I have never said that T and Q are interchangeable. Never! In fact, I don't use at all the terminology of interchangeable letters. What I have said is that the letters ג ה ח כ ק G H (not silent H) X K Q are equivalent, and that this is universally true, without fail.
Then I said that this is how I understand that פיסח רגליים = פישק רגליים PISEAX RAGLAYIM = PISEQ RAGLAYIM, and that פיסגה = פישקה PISGAH = PISQAH.

2. Still, there is, indeed, this fact worthy of notice that that the roots (or acts) PLX, PCX, PQX, PTX are all essentially, or basically (you have the right to question "essentially" or "basically"), the same.

3. I am not a big fan of the "come from" theories, Hebrew "came" from the depth of our forefather's soul.

4. I have never said that "the letters ( and Q are interchangeable", nor that "the letters R and X are interchangeable". Never!

5. The Aramaic ארקא ARQA (Jer. 10:11) corresponds to our קרקע QARQA.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:


isaac,

your system is, undoubtedly, of considerable esthetic value and,
i would venture to say, probably correct in many points. i would
also venture to say, wrong in many other points. why?

the point is that you say A=B when, in effect, A=B holds in some contexts
and not in others. but you use A=B when it suits you, i.e. when the
ETYMOLOGY is in favor, and ignore A=B in others, i.e. when the ETYMOLOGY
is against.

example: you say: "T and Q are interchangeable". well, maybe in PTX vs
PQX they are. but in (TR vs (QR, PTR vs PQR, RTM vs RQM, ShTL
vs ShQL, QNH vs TNH, QR vs TR, QM vs TM, PQQ vs PTQ etc etc, they
seem not to be. so, in these examples you very
conveniently prefer to "forget" that T and Q are interchangeable.

using a linguistic law only when it suits your conclusion is not very
interesting, because it is a law without objective verification.

in addition, to convince us, you will have to explain in the "positive
hits" and also explain out the "negative hits".

granted, your "self evident explanation" is the most probable, but did it
really happen this way? say, maybe PTX and PQX come from
two COMPLETELY different sources (say, for jim's sake, canaanite and
hurrian) and their similarity is an accident.

consider also the root P(R, which is also roughly "open". i could similarly
say that PQX is related to P(R since "the letters ( and Q are interchangeable"
and "the letters R and X are interchangeable".
i could even bring the aramaic dual example )RQH=)R(H ( hebrew EREC ) as
evidence for the first "law" and BRR=BXR, BWR=PX for the second. i would be
inventing a rule just as valid as yours and, i am afraid, just as shaky.

so, the linguists do not hurry as much as you do in drawing hasty
conclusions and prefer to wait for a more solid confirmations from
ancient texts, including the examination of other languages spoken
in the region, which you dismiss as unnecessary.

nir cohen

---------------------------

isaac wrote:

What I mean by self evident is that all we need for verification is
to open the Hebrew Bible and look for it.

In Gen. 3:7 PAQAX is used to the parting of the eyelids to expose the
pupil (indeed, in the extended sense of understanding what one sees),
while in 1Ki 8:29 the verb PATAX is used for it. In Dt. 15:8 PATAX is
used for the parting of the fingers of the hand.

Opening the eyes is such a common act that Hebrew has a special verb
for it. Hebrew has also this special verb NAGAN, 'to play a musical
instrumet', absent in English!

All we have in Biblical Hebrew is what we see written, and hence a
phonetic analysis of its verbs is irrelevant, methinks.

I believe that the only way to penetrate the internal logic of the
Hebrew language is via the realization that some of its letters are
mere variants, say ג ח כ ק G X K Q. There is no doubt in my mind,
for instance, that PISEX RAGLAYIM is PISEQ RAGLAYIM, 'a spreader, or
parter, of (limp) legs'. Here [Y] is a PISEX RAGLAYIM standing on his
head.

What is this RO$ HA-PISG-AH of Nu. 23:14? Of course, it is ראש
הפשקה RO$ HA-PISQ-AH, the point where the mountain parts its
slopes. The place is also called שדה צופים SDE COPIYM (COPEH
is, I believe, a COBEH, 'erect'), a vantage point, an observatory.
This is how ancient Hebrews understood PISGAH, and this is how I
understand it.

Today we use the word פסיג PSIYG for the embryonic parting of the
leaves in a sprouting seed. Here is how it looks like [Y].

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




  • [b-hebrew] PTX vs PQX, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat., 04/27/2012
    • Re: [b-hebrew] PTX vs PQX, Isaac Fried, 04/28/2012

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page