[b-hebrew] logograms--an ode to Hebrew
vadim_lv at center-tv.net
Thu Dec 23 15:22:10 EST 2004
> >Why would anyone be concerned in 2nd millennium BCE to conform the
> >roots to triliteral pattern? There is no evidence for such concern
> >whatsoever in any language.
> What? Have you studied all 6500 languages?
Quite obviously, There is no evidence for such concern whatsoever in any
language "I heard of."
> It is a regular part of
> acquiring loan words that their structure is adjusted to conform to that
> of the borrowing language. For example, in Russian the suffix -ovat' and
> -irovat' is used to make Russian verbs from English, German etc verbs.
What this has to do with conforming the words to fixed-length roots? Do you
know of any language exhibiting tendency to adopt the loand words into
fixed-length root mould?
> But not that they came from any committee or centralised
> authority, rather that they emerged in the same way as new words emerged
> today, from idiosyncratic usage
And why would naturally emerging words
a. conform to fixed-length roots
b. have regular patterns in root construction (such as, again, further in
alphabet is the third radical, lighter is the meaning: not for all roots,
but beyond coincidence)
How could the concept of three-letter roots predate the concept of letter?
> are you not aware that there are quite a number of quadriliteral
> roots in Hebrew? They are very ancient because many of them e.g. TRGM
> are shared with Arabic, Aramaic etc.
Uh, I argue for long time now that four-letter nouns with initial taw are
frozen hifil verbs, t+rgm.
More information about the b-hebrew