[b-hebrew] Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew
if at math.bu.edu
Thu Jun 26 11:05:59 EDT 2008
Yes, but the whole thing is useless or trivial or sheer waste of
time. Linguistics requires that the 'linguistic unit' under
consideration be first ascertained to be meaningful (and minimal!) to
qualify for morpheme status, but it does not tell us how to achieve
this knowledge. Once I know the meaning of a certain 'linguistic
unit' I don't need linguistics to tell me it is a morpheme. It is
what it means to be. This is tautology at its best.
My ideas about the structure of the Hebrew word merit careful
consideration, rather than derision. It is pity, but instead of
concentrating on Hebrew we waste our time on the barren word
inventions and interplays of Indo-European linguistics.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jun 26, 2008, at 2:35 AM, David Kummerow wrote:
> Dear Isaac,
> I am again baffled as to where you get your ideas from. Again, the
> you espouse below allows you to maintain your etymological
> fallacies in
> the face of being shown that they are in fact wrong. Of course the
> classical grammarians weren't using our language of "phoneme" and
> "morpheme", but the concepts of "phoneme" and "morpheme" can be found
> Still you haven't countered my point that you have attributed
> status to phonemes. Because of this mistake, your work is shot through
> with errors.
> David Kummerow.
>> Hebrew etymology has nothing to do with linguistics. People have
>> analyzed the structure and meaning of Hebrew words for thousands of
>> years prior to the morpheme the phoneme and the phonemic and
>> morphemic analysis.
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>> On Jun 25, 2008, at 6:56 PM, David Kummerow wrote:
>>> Dear Isaac,
>>> It seems to me that you are again unable to provide answers to the
>>> critique levelled at your position and do not engage with, or
>>> seek to
>>> understand, linguistic methodology proper so that you can still
>>> hold on
>>> to your fallacious view of linguistics, the language of BH, and
>>> etymological reconstructions.
>>> Look, you wanted to converse in "plain" English, so I attempted a
>>> definition of "morpheme" for you that was in plain English. Now you
>>> want to nit-pick. Of course I could define "morpheme" more
>>> and also define the words I did use: "unit", "bears", and "meaning".
>>> Comparing the definition I gave and reading the sections I pointed
>>> to in
>>> Joüon-Muraoka and Waltke-O'Connor would, if you wanted to see,
>>> the point and flesh out more of what "morpheme" means. The answer's
>>> there if you want it.
>>> If your view of linguistics is that it is "but one big
>>> tautology", why
>>> don't you just stay clear of it and stick with mathematics? Why
>>> write a
>>> book on etymology if you do not understand the basics of the
>>> methodology, viz. phonemic and morphemic analysis (of course,
>>> more to than simply this; one also has to be familiar with
>>> linguistics, etc.)? I'm sure you would take to task someone who
>>> attempted some algebraic maths without having first come to grips
>>> how to add, subtract, etc. Similarly, etymological reconstruction
>>> be done without first knowing some linguistic basics.
>>> I find it quite ironic that someone who does not understand
>>> claims that linguistics is "but one big tautology"! My suspicion is
>>> claiming that linguistics is "but one big tautology" is but a cop-
>>> indicating (a) that you don't want to budge from your position, even
>>> when proven wrong; and (b) you will never budge from your position,
>>> when proven wrong. I more than willing to be proven wrong on
>>> these two
>>> David Kummerow.
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew