pporta at oham.net
pporta at oham.net
Thu Dec 13 14:20:39 EST 2007
It has been my experience of many years that planting a new idea is easy but supplanting an existing idea is nigh impossible. Planted ideas are the MASMROT NTU(IM of Ecclesiastes 12:11. Explaining is also best done interactively.
You appear to agree with David that "gender-marking is not person-marking!", so pray, explain to me first what is in your opinion a Hebrew "gender-marking",
"Gender-marker" is every "device" that tells to the reader or the listener which is the gender of the being/thing (person, object, animal, mind being...) dealt with.
1. A final -AH is a "gender-marker" in "na(arAH", girl (Rt 2:6), compared with "na(ar", boy (Gen 37:2)
2. A final -T is a "gender-marker" in "(omedeT" (Hag 2:5) compared with "(omed" (Gen 18:8)
what is a Hebrew "person-marking", and why "gender-marking IS NOT [or can not be] person-marking".
"Person-marker" is every "device" that tells to the reader or the listener which is the person (I, you, he, we...) who/which speaks, acts... and so on...
1. A final -TY is a "person-marker" in "dibarTY", I spoke (Js 1:3) compared with "diber", he spoke (Gen 18:8)
2. An initial "Yi" is a "person-marker" AND at a time a "tense-marker" in "yishlax", he will send (Gn 3:22) compared with 'shalax", he sent.
2. A final -U is a "person-marker" in "dibrU", they spoke (Gn 45:15), compared with "diber", he spoke (Gen
Person-markers apply to verbs (or verb forms) and personal pronouns.
and why "gender-marking IS NOT [or can not be] person-marking".
These are two quite different concepts. The same as this: color and thickness are differents things or concepts... and they can be found coexisting together in a given object, let us say in a piece of chalk (a blue thick piece of chalk or a thick blue piece of chalk) or not...
Now, can a color be or become thickness? Surely no!
Can thickness be or become a color? Surely no!
What can you argue against this?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:54 AM, <pporta at oham.net> wrote:
person-marking. I repeat: gender-marking is not person-marking!
As regards noun-adjective, yes, I agree.
By the way, I think the problem with Isaac Fried is this: either he does not
want to strive to explain things in such a manner that most of us can
understand what he says.... or really his theories, statements, assertions
and so on are without any solid base.
If it is the first thing .... there is no point in keeping discussing with
him. And if it is the second thing... ... the same!
If he sincerely thinks he is right, he should do every effort to explain his
ideas... specially when some of listers have read his writing/s --whose URL
Isaac himself gave us here some days ago-- and his ideas or message did not
become clearer to readers after reading it/them.
This is, imho, the central issue, the core thing with him.
More information about the b-hebrew