[b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47 - Suffix -UT

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Wed Nov 28 23:50:16 EST 2007


David,

You are saying

"Isaac, whenever I see a 'u' and an 'i' I see a vowel -- not  
necessary a person-number-gender (PNG) inflection. I don't know why  
you say I see it when I don't, esp. when I keep pointing out that  
this is so."

Of course you see --- God blessed you with eyesight. But you fail, I  
am afraid, to understand what you are seeing.
The rest is a corollary to the above.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:48 PM, David Kummerow wrote:

> Hi Isaac,
>
> See comments below:
>
>
>> David,
>> Whenever you look at an U and an I [also O and E] in a Hebrew word  
>> you see a universal identity marker [also known as a personal  
>> pronoun], invariably.
>
> Isaac, whenever I see a 'u' and an 'i' I see a vowel -- not  
> necessary a person-number-gender (PNG) inflection. I don't know why  
> you say I see it when I don't, esp. when I keep pointing out that  
> this is so.
>
>
> If T is not radical, then it is a personal pronoun,
>> invariably. I have said this repeatedly on this list [also, of  
>> course, in my book, which can be seen in its entirety at  
>> www.hebrewetymology.com <http://www.hebrewetymology.com>].
>
> That is simply false and this type of mistake lies at the very  
> heart of your erroneous methodology. /t/ as a phoneme in BH is open  
> to be used: 1) within the 'root' for any given word; 2) within the  
> paradigm of independent personal pronouns; 3) as verbal and nominal  
> marking of PNG; and 4) within any other morpheme with various  
> functions, eg -ut. So basically anywhere. It seems to me you do not  
> understand what phonemic status entails. /t/ as a phoneme is not  
> constrained to equate solely to either a 'root' letter or a marker  
> of PNG. The fact that you insist this is so is a mystery to me. You  
> attempt some sort of advanced linguistic analysis of Hebrew, yet  
> you seem to not have a sufficient grasp of foundational linguistic  
> methodology.
>
>> It is for illustrative purposes only that I specifically read -U-  
>> as HU), and -I- as HI). Consider the example of $-U-LAX, $AL-U-AX,  
>> and $ALX-U, of the root $LX, 'send'. Even though the latter means  
>> 'THEY have sent' I permit myself to read it as $ALX-HU) by virtue  
>> of the universality of U.
>
> There is no sense to 'illustrative purposes' if it is just plain  
> wrong. In any case, there is nothing 'universal' about 'u'. As a  
> vowel, it is not constrained for use simply as a marker of PNG. The  
> phonemic status of /u/ dictates that this is so. It is secondary to  
> this that this vowel is used in some situations as a marker of PNG.  
> Moreover, I think $-U-LAX and $AL-U-AX are figments of your  
> imagination: they form no part of the paradigm for $LX. You see PNG  
> marking where morphemes semantically indicate something entirely  
> different -- but now in this case you're even adding vowels in for  
> extra pronouns! Once you begin to operate with the methodology you  
> do, it seems there's no end to how many pronouns you can 'find'!
>
>> I am preparing now a reply to Kenneth Greifer in which I will  
>> elaborate on this in some greater detail. Isaac Fried, Boston  
>> University
>
> I wish you wouldn't. We all know what you think, and since it has  
> no basis in reality it is better you kept your views to yourself to  
> save tiring the list with any more of this.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list