[b-hebrew] Lev 21:18 - Passive Participle

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Sat Oct 29 21:27:59 EDT 2005


This brings up the question which trumps what? Does 
internal evidence trump cognate languages, or the other 
way around?

If within Biblical Hebrew there is only one meaning 
evidenced for a lexeme, I see no need to look in cognate 
languages for multiple roots. You on the other hand, seem 
to say that if Arabic has multiple roots, then Hebrew must 
necessarily have multiple roots as well, even when there 
is no evidence within Hebrew for it.

(Further, the two Arabic roots look as if they could have 
come originally from one root that first became dialectic 
differences, that later became phonemic.)

The only way to resolve this disagreement is to find 
documents that show a development of Hebrew indicating 
that it originally had the extra sounds. So far there has 
been no sign of those documents. So we'll have to agree 
to disagree.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter at qaya.org>
> On 29/10/2005 22:10, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > Peter:
> >
> > I was making the argument that Jack may be correct as to how he 
> > understands XRM, and if so, then all uses of XRM reflect the same 
> > action with the same spelling. Only Arabic differs. If Jack is 
> > correct, then the evidence contradicts the claim that these uses 
> > reflect different roots.
> >
> >
> >
> Or, to put it the correct way round, the evidence from the 
> different Arabic roots shows that Jack's claims are not correct.
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list