[b-hebrew] KWM and HWH

David Kolinsky yishalom at sbcglobal.net
Fri Oct 17 18:26:47 EDT 2008

Rather than starting with specifics, I will start with this.  Clearly you are a highly educated person well verse in Hebrew and the text.  I have no doubt you know mountains more than me.  Nevertheless, as I specified earlier my work is novel and extensive.  Were I to be presented with the limited information of my work as I have to this list serve I would agree with you 100%.  You have not seen my work in its entirety and have not had the benefit of studying it.  Surely you can admit that in any field of study the knowledge of the past is not as complete as it is in later centuries.  Were I to present you with the first pictures of DNA fifty years ago, you would most definately had been as dismissive of it as you are of my work today.  However, over the years more work is done and more knowledge is accumulated.  Theories are studied, compared and tested.  
Now, I will take issue with your specifics.
1 - "KWM is not a root attested to in Hebrew. Even if it is found in other
languages, to make it a Hebrew root is the same as inventing it."
We have a very small amount of the lexicon of biblical Hebrew as compared to Akkadian for example.  The fact that KWM is not attested in our data base does not mean it never existed.  The fact the it means roughly the same thing in the cognate languages is strong evidence that it probably did exist.

2- "HWH is not from )WH, neither is HYH. Both the forms and the meanings of the
words indicate that that cannot be accurate."

This is an example of my novel work, I would never expect you to accept.  But I know for sure that it is correct.  You didn't even show that you considered the evidence in detail.  If you did consider it in detail and didn't feel the need to show that you examed it in detail on the list serve then please don't bother comenting on it.  It is immature and not scholarly.
Regards and Peace,
David Kolinsky

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list