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

David Kummerow farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 29 00:06:08 EST 2007


Hi Isaac,

Actually, I said, and have said, a lot more than that.

Your failure to address such foundational issues as raised is telling. 
As I said before, I will no longer waste my time responding unless you 
choose to address mine and others' arguments. I have better things to do 
than interact with nonsense ideas having no linguistic basis.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> 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