[b-hebrew] bi adoni

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Mon Jul 9 15:41:53 EDT 2007


You say: "your theories are so ideologically based". Please explain  
to me and the rest of this list members on what ideology you think my  
theory is "based".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jul 9, 2007, at 2:48 PM, K Randolph wrote:

> Isaac:
> On 7/8/07, Isaac Fried <if at math.bu.edu> wrote:
>> Travis,
>> One of the reasons that what I am saying is being so little debated
>> is because it leaves the contributing members of this list literally
>> speechless.
> Or would it be more accurate to say that your theories are so
> ideologically based that they really are not the proper subject to
> argue about on this list?
>> ... On the one hand they are reluctant, I think, to
>> acknowledge something as radical as this, coming from nowhere and
>> never before uttered by the venerable Gesenius [the faithful follower
>> of the medieval Jewish grammarians, who got the system from their
>> Arab counterparts of Spain],
> Not all of us are followers of Gesenius. As for him, what was more
> important, the medieval system that he inherited, or the evolutionary
> system with its Eurocentrism and racism of which he was a part?
>> ... but on the other hand they are unable, I
>> think, to concretely refute or contradict it.
> How does one refute something that is pure speculation? By using more
> speculation?
> With Biblical Hebrew, we have a very limited corpus to study. We have
> some documents in cognate languages, but not that many that predate
> the historical claims for Hebrew. What we have is after it has already
> been developed, with no antecedents to tell us etymology. Therefore,
> any theory based on etymology is by necessity speculation.
>> ... I know that what I am
>> saying is inherently correct, and that it actually, decisively,
>> completely and elegantly, solve the entire enigma of the structure of
>> the Hebrew language, and conclusively clarifies its grammar.
> But what if your model is wrong? It may be able to explain the grammar
> according to the model, and still be false.
>> ... I keep
>> saying here what I think needs to be said under the premise that
>> behind the vanguard of a few actively contributing list members there
>> hides a big army of silent readers, and I know that eventually at
>> least some of them will be won over to the side of reason.
> An important consideration.
>> What I essentially inter alia claim is that the Hebrew tri-literal
>> root was not born so fully formed, but was rather built up over time
>> of single-literal roots. One of these roots ["reversed cognates"] is
>> AB or BA where A is a vowel entered just to facilitate the
>> pronunciation. In Hebrew the A vowel may be carried by an Ayin or an
>> Aleph indifferently. AB-BA [or AP-PA or AW-WA] essentially means
>> 'thick, of actual presence'. In this sense, 'father' is essentially
>> 'the thick one, the fat one [father = fat-er?]', and likewise cloud
>> [a closed clod of vapor] is also essentially 'the thick one,'---they
>> are both in their material essence one and the same. Yet to visually,
>> and eventually semantically, distinguish between them )AB, 'father'
>> is written with an Aleph and (AB, cloud' is written with an Ayin.
>> Likewise, )AP, 'nose', is the fleshy part jutting up on the face
>> [recall Song 7:5 "thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh
>> toward Damascus"], and (AP, 'fly', means being up [no movement, just
>> being up there].
> The above is a perfect example of speculation.
>> Consider also 1 Samuel 1:20. "she bare a son, and called his name
>> Samuel, saying, Because I have asked [root: $)L] him of the LORD." I
>> suspect that the original spelling of the name was $MU()EL with an
>> Ayin for Listened-God, of the root $M(, but that this Ayin was
>> dropped in writing with the intention of achieving in our mind the
>> segregation of this and the other ancient name YI$MA()EL. It is also
>> clear from this verse that the pious and linguistically monumentally
>> gifted Hannah saw the roots $M and $L as being related.
> I discussed this verse a while back on this list, in bringing up other
> questions. There is no evidence that an ayin was ever in the name, but
> there is some (disputed) evidence that the sin and shin may originally
> have been one letter, instead of two as recognized by more modern
> (including medieval) grammars. Secondly names' meanings did not
> necessarily follow the comment about why the names were given, so that
> it is possible that Samuel meant "God placed him" following that
> Hannah asked for him of the Lord. There is no need for the speculated
> relatedness to explain the meaning.
>> To see the equivalence of of AB-BA and the other existence markers  
>> AG-
>> consider the Hebrew words: my comments follow yours:
> MA-(AB-EH, 'thicket': 1 Kings 7:46, used only here, context indicates
> its meaning is "mold", a hollow into which metal is poured to make a
> statue
> MA-)AP-EH, ' baked [faked?, backed?, bigged?] pastries': baked goods,
> referring to the action of baking in an oven. Not all baked goods
> rise.
> MA-(AQ-EH, 'parapet, battlement': used only once, root unknown,
> possibly a loan word
> MA-(AL-EH, 'ascent': from the action of going up.
> MA-(AS-EH, 'act, deed carried out': OK
> MA-)AT-EH, 'covering': from the action of wrapping, such as when
> wrapping cloth around an object (spelled with a tet, not a tau), as in
> dressing, putting on clothing
> MA-(AN-EH, 'reply'.
> You were more careful than last time I checked up on you, when you
> used non-Biblical roots. But are you not being selective? How do )Z
> then, )X woe, )X hibachi, a small, portable cooking device carrying
> coals for heating, )+ quietness, not forceful, )N woe, )T plow, (D
> witness, (+ sharp tool for engraving, ($ caterpillar, (T time fit into
> your scheme?
> And to be consistent, would you not have to include words with an
> inserted matere lexionis such as )YD misfortune, )YN none,
> nothingness, )YK interrogative how, )WT sign, )WB poker, and others?
> To me it looks as if your theory is stretching to the breaking point.
> ...
>> Meanwhile we can pleasantly and profitably contemplate the curious
>> similarity of )ADON, 'master', of BI )ADONI, and )EDEN 'base', both
>> from the root )DN.
> Are they from the same root? Where is your evidence?
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> Modern science was based on observation, where any use of math and
> theory was used to try to explain the observations.
> Post-modern science is regressing to pre-modern science, which is
> based on theory as taking precedence over observation. In
> pre-post-modern science, sitting around and making thought
> experiments, often including mathematical models, is considered more
> authoritative than physical experiments.
> Now we come to linguistics: Biblical Hebrew was written over a span of
> about 850 years, when the language was relatively isolated and stable,
> with the main observed chronological differences being more in the
> area of literary style than language change. Before Moses, we have no
> written antecedents to show any prior changes in the language, and
> after the Babylonian Exile there is a clear break in the literary
> style, consistent with a people who no longer spoke Hebrew as their
> main language.
> A study of that relatively limited corpus that makes up the Hebrew
> Bible shows us certain patterns of language use, lexicography,
> grammar, and so forth. But it doesn't show us how it came to be that
> way. It doesn't show us why the patterns are as they are. All
> observation can tell us is that these patterns exist and what they
> are.
> Now you come to us with a theory that has no points of observation to
> back it up, based on a Weltanschauung that many of us do not share,
> then you expect us to accept it as true. The Weltanschauung portions
> of your theory are, by prior agreement, not to be argued on this list,
> and most of the rest of it is based on unobservable speculation where
> we have nothing either to support or disprove your theory, hence most
> of us see no reason to argue with you.
> In short, we are not impressed with your erudition, rendered
> speechless by your theory, rather we see a unique piece of speculation
> where the only response is more speculation, a rather useless
> exercise. Hence I tend to ignore your postings. The only reason I
> answered this one is because of your purpose, "I keep saying here what
> I think needs to be said under the premise that behind the vanguard of
> a few actively contributing list members there hides a big army of
> silent readers, and I know that eventually at least some of them will
> be won over to the side of reason."
> Karl W. Randolph.
> _______________________________________________
> 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