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

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Thu Nov 29 00:56:45 EST 2007


David,

You have said

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

I know. I would greatly prefer, though, to stay focused on one thing  
at a time.

I have said it often and very clearly before, and I will say it again:

Every U and I in a Hebrew word is a universal identity marker [aka  
personal pronoun], invariably.

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.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:06 AM, David Kummerow wrote:

>
> 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