[b-hebrew] Explain it please

David Kummerow farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Mon Dec 10 23:50:10 EST 2007


Hi Isaac,

I take it that you did indeed deny more than one vowel. You stated 
(http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-November/034625.html):

"There is no such thing in Hebrew as a "vowel", except for A. The idea 
of the vowel is an alien carry-over into Hebrew from Indo-European grammar."

To me this statement can only be construed to mean that you only accept 
"A" as a vowel in BH -- hence only one vowel.

Do you accept that the "sounds" you list have phonemic status in BH? If 
so, then a consequence of this is not every "U", "I", etc need be a 
personal pronoun, which I have outlined in a previous post. This is a 
by-product of accepting these vowels as phonemes.

In any case, what of my question, namely, What is your evidence for 
equating what has traditionally been analysed as gender marking to 
actually be speech-participant marking?

Regards,
David Kummerow.



> David,
> 
> Do you really think that I am, or was, denying the existence of the U, 
> I, O, E sounds in Hebrew?
> 
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> 
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:09 PM, David Kummerow wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi Isaac,
>>
>> It puzzles you, I think, because you seem to be unfamiliar with basic 
>> linguistic principles and methodology, even though you yourself 
>> propose something "linguistic".
>>
>> Am am unsure what you mean by "Where is the single vowel". It was you 
>> who proposed this idea that BH has only one vowel 
>> (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-November/034625.html). 
>> Are you now suggesting that there are no vowels? or that there are 
>> more than one vowel and that you are retracting your previous assertion?
>>
>> I say it is "impossible" because human language requires more contrast 
>> for linguistic production than what a single vowel can provide. Known 
>> human languages around the world only minimally have two vowels, so 
>> the burden of proof rests with you. Further, not every theoretical 
>> vowel combinations are possible, but those with greater contrasts are 
>> preferred. See Björn Lindblom, "Phonetic universals in vowel systems," 
>> in Experimental phonology (John Ohala and Jeri Jaeger, eds.; 
>> Dordrecht: Foris, 1986), 13-44.
>>
>> Regards,
>> David Kummerow.
>>
>>
>>> David,
>>> I am really puzzled by your statement:
>>> your contention -- again without adduced evidence -- that BH has only a
>>> single vowel is linguistically impossible
>>> Where is the single vowel and why is it linguistically impossible?
>>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>> On Dec 10, 2007, at 3:45 AM, David Kummerow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Isaac,
>>>>
>>>> You wrote this:
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Even though -AH is in my opinion but a contracted HI) it may refer
>>>>> to various agents and objects in various relationship modes. We have
>>>>> YALDAH, 'girl, child-she', YALDAH, 'she gave birth, produced-a-chid-
>>>>> she' and YALDAH, 'her boy, boy-she'.
>>>>
>>>> and this:
>>>>
>>>>> 4. In the adjective TOBAH, 'good', -AH refers to the feminine bearer
>>>>> of the attribute, but in the noun TOBAH, 'favor, goodness', -AH
>>>>> refers to the thing itself. Incidentally it is "female", as is
>>>>> autostradah.
>>>>> 5 The counterpart to MAR, 'mister' is MAR-AT, where -AT is surely the
>>>>> personal pronoun AT, 'you'. MARAH is 'bitter'. Such is also the
>>>>> relationship between GEBER and GBER-ET.
>>>>
>>>> What is the evidence for these assertions?
>>>>
>>>> What is your evidence for equating what has traditionally been analysed
>>>> as gender marking to actually be speech-participant marking? I've
>>>> already demonstrated that your methodology is without linguistic
>>>> support, viz. 1) that you eschew any essential phonemic analysis which
>>>> allows you to basically propose anything you want to as it is then 
>>>> up to
>>>> the imagination and so is without any constraints; and 2) your
>>>> contention -- again without adduced evidence -- that BH has only a
>>>> single vowel is linguistically impossible. These two issues lead
>>>> ultimately to a fanciful analysis which no one is taking seriously.
>>>>
>>>> You would do well to read monographs which relate to your above
>>>> assertions such as the following:
>>>>
>>>> Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.
>>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>>>>
>>>> Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.
>>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>>>>
>>>> Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.
>>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> David Kummerow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>
>>
> 
> 




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list