[b-hebrew] KWM and HWH
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Fri Oct 17 20:54:35 EDT 2008
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:26 PM, David Kolinsky <yishalom at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> 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.
Flattery will get you anywhere ....... NOT!
> 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.
Very true, and I am one of the first to admit that.
> The fact that KWM is not attested in our data base does not mean it never
> The fact the it means roughly the same thing in the cognate languages is
> strong evidence that it probably did exist.
> Non-demonstrable assumption. One has to be very careful with cognate
languages. Words that are present in one do not necessarily appear in
another, even very close, cognate language. Even when words are found in
both, they can have very different meanings, e.g. $KX in Aramaic vs. $KX in
All we know for certain about Biblical Hebrew language is what has survived.
Anything beyond that is speculation. Because I reject speculation, I reject
this one as well.
> 2- "HWH is not from )WH, neither is HYH. Both the forms and the meanings of
> 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.
Don't need to. It directly contradicts the relationship Biblical Hebrew
words have with their roots, and by extension, their etymologies.
Alep and Heh are distinct phonemes that never are exchanged on the first and
second root letters of a word, and on the rare cases where that happens on
the third letter is based on other grammatical rules.
Add to that that the meanings are so different, another clue that the idea
is not correct.
> 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
The easiest person for me to fool is myself, and for you to fool is
yourself. We can work hard on an idea, convince ourselves that it has to be
correct, and be dead wrong. I don't doubt that you have worked hard on your
theory. The only problem is that we don't have any examples of
"proto-Hebrew" or before, therefore any etymological study will of necessity
be highly speculative and impossible to demonstrate.
Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew