[b-hebrew] BO and BO)
if at math.bu.edu
Sun Aug 19 23:44:42 EDT 2007
Since what I am saying is, as far as I know, new, it surly does not "go
against the grain of the consensus of Hebrew morphology and semantics". In
principle I am not contradicting anyone---there is nothing to contradict.
The fact "that they [the theories] are not supported by any other
grammatical/morphological study that I am aware of" means also nothing---the
theory is self-contained and self-supporting. Your statement to the effect
that "the approach appears to place an almost mathematical straightjacket
onto something which is quite simply not mathematical in nature: language"
is, to say the least, challenging as it touches at once upon the twin
awesome questions of what is language and what is mathematics.
As I did say before, language was invented in remote times by utterly simple
people and was developed over time by consensus (no books, no academies),
and hence its structure ("morphology") must be utterly simple, coherent,
inherently logical, and naturally extensible. I am convinced that the theory
comprehensively captures the nature of the Hebrew language in its totality.
It completely, easily and naturally resolves every issue on both the
semantic and grammatical nature of the Hebrew language. You can safely teach
it to your students to their absolute delight and intellectual enlightenment
and gratification. Once you look at Hebrew from this point of view
everything falls into place and the innate logic of the language becomes
For the sake of completeness I will briefly repeat here its essentials. More
can be seen at www.hebrewetymology.com
1. Every Hebrew word consists entirely of a root plus personal pronouns, or
identity markers (excluding the pre-positioned B, K, L, M markers). In a
noun the personal pronouns refer to the object, whereas in an act (verb) the
personal pronouns refer to the actors or agents.
2. The Hebrew root describes a material state.
3. Every consonant, excepting Alef and Ayin, in the Hebrew root represents a
single-consonant root. The Hebrew root consists thus of a combination of
single-consonant roots, which I call the fundamental concepts of the
language. There are essentially seven such fundamental concepts of which the
Hebrew language is comprised, with six of them indicating existence, and
one, represented by the letter R, indicating plurality.
4. The six existence markers are:
AB-BA, represented by the letters B, W, P, corresponding to the English 'be,
AG-GA, represented by the letters G, H, X, K, Q.
AZ-ZA, represented by the letters D, Z, T, Y, S, C, S, $, T, corresponding
to the English 'is'.
AM-MA, represented by the letter M, corresponding to the English 'am'.
AL-LA, represented by the letter L.
AN-NA, represented by the letter N, corresponding to the English 'in, on'.
For example, the root GDL = GA-AD-AL, or in full GDL = GA)AH-DA)AH-(ALAH,
exactly describing the root.
5. The seventh fundamental concept, the plurality marker AR-RA, is
represented by the letter R. Every Hebrew root that contains the letter R
describes a state of dispersion or aggregation, for example: RCX, RSQ, RC(,
PRM, PRS, $BR, GZR, CBR.
6. The vowels U-O, I-E interspersed among the radical letters are universal
personal pronouns creating the different MI$QALIM and the BINYANIM. The A
sound is just a puff of air. It stands to reason that the ancient Hebrews
did not waste the vowels for just UUU and EEE sounds, but put them rather to
a decisive semantic use [otherwise how are we to account for the grammatical
function of, say, the O sound in BO, BO), POH, KOH, ZO, SO), MO, LO, LO)].
For example, from the root GDL Hebrew generates the words GADOL = GAD-HU-L,
'[he is] large', GDIL = GD-HI-L, '[it is] a large tussle', GODEL =
G-HU-D-HI-L, 'greatness', *GIDUL = G-HI-D-HU-L, 'growth, tumor', GIDEL =
G-HI-D-HI-L, 'he caused it [him] to grow', HIGDIL = HI-GD-HI-L, 'he caused
it [him] to become large', GUDAL = G-HU-DAL, '[he was] raised' (but *AGUDAL
7. The self-standing Hebrew personal pronouns consist of an existence marker
plus a vowel (unless it became attenuated with time), for example, ANI =
AN-HI, 'I', ANU = AN-HU, 'we'. As they became attached to preceding or
succeeding words they contracted to nearly their consonantal essence as
expressed by the letters A, H, K, M, N, T, for example MIGDAL = MI-GDAL,
'tower', *MUGDAL = MU-GDAL, '[he is] enlarged', *MAGDELET =
MA-GD-HI-L-HI-AT, '[she is] enlarging', GDULAH = GD-HU-L-A-HI, 'grandeur',
GADLUT = GADL-HU-AT, 'greatness', *GDILAH = GD-HI-L-HI, 'growth', TALMID =
ATAH-LM-HI-D, 'student', *TALMUD = ATAH-LM-HU-D, 'study', $AMARNU =
$AMAR-AN-HU, 'we guarded', NI$MAR = NI-$AMAR = AN-HI-$AMAR, 'he guarded
himself', YI$AMRU = HI-$AMAR-HU, 'they will guard themselves', )E$LAX
=)E-$LAX = )NI-$LAX, 'I will send'.
Since the Indo-European languages garbled long ago their root system, and in
consequence lost their natural grammar, Indo-European linguistics is mostly
irrelevant to Hebrew.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Athas" <george.athas at moore.edu.au>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] BO and BO)
> Hi Isaac!
> I point out (again) with regard to your theories, that they are not
> supported by any other grammatical/morphological study that I am aware of.
> The particular analysis you offer in relation to this topic goes against
> grain of the general consensus of Hebrew morphology and semantics.
> This, in itself, is not bad, for we can always challenge our
> presuppositions. However, the approach appears to place an almost
> mathematical straightjacket onto something which is quite simply not
> mathematical in nature: language. This appears to occur at the basic root
> level of theoretical semantics. However, there then appears to be
> randomness in the way this approach deals with actual packaging of
> into morphological lexemes/particles.
> The randomness appears to be a function of imposing such a stringent
> mathematical approach onto something which does not function
> In other words, to overcome the gap between such a rigid semantic system
> the one you propose, and the actual words we encounter on the average page
> of the Hebrew Bible, there has to be a wholesale leap which seems quite
> random. The only controlling factor I can observe here is 'near enough is
> good enough'.
> The fact that this system involves such leaps tells me there is a serious
> flaw in it.
> Could you please tell us, is this what you teach your students? The reason
> ask is that your semantic-morphological system represents a very
> non-conventional system, and I believe students should also be informed
> about what the scholarly consensus is.
> Best Regards,
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney)
> 1 King St, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia
> Ph: (+61 2) 9577 9774
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> __________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
More information about the b-hebrew