[b-hebrew] Tense and aspect; was: "The use of "

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Thu Apr 23 09:15:56 EDT 2009


Jason,

I am sorry, but I still find what you are saying too diffused for an  
answer, but I would love to hear from you anything concrete. For  
instance, I am making the claim that in the Hebrew word $ABUR,  
'broken', the internal U is actually the inserted Hebrew personal  
pronoun HU) [הוא] referring to the thing broken. Do you agree with  
this?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Jason Hare wrote:

> Isaac,
>
> I'm not looking to get into an argument or disagreement about how you
> can your opinions and
> feelings regarding the make-up of the Hebrew language, but I'm certain
> that every single other contributor on the list knows what I meant by
> that statement. What I'm interested in getting across to you is that
> you have no footing on which to stand when you make a proclamation
> that "lack of definition" is somehow better, because your system of
> root letters bearing semantic weight is just as definition-based and
> overly intricate as the work of anyone in the field of linguistics,
> and with less right to be so. At least they submit their work for peer
> review, for critique, for betterment. Your opinions exist outside of
> the realm of investigation, since they have never been submitted for
> scrutiny — or when you have received any kind of feedback, you have
> rejected it out of hand.
>
> All I'm saying is that you have no right to send the message that you
> sent, criticizing others for attempting to systematize, categorize and
> understand both the language and human communicative means, when your
> own system is just as complicated and far less supportable.
>
> As I said, I'm not interested in debating this with you. You've had
> enough debate from EVERYONE on this list who thinks your theories are
> far-fetched and non-representative, and it would be a waste of
> anyone's time (and of the server space) to take these things up again.
> Just watch it when it comes to pop shots and one-liners intended to
> undermine other people's way of looking at things. I mean, you are
> hardly one to talk when it comes to such things.
>
> Regards,
> Jason Hare
> Rehovot, Israel
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Isaac Fried <if at math.bu.edu> wrote:
>> Jason,
>> I am sorry but do not really understand what you are saying: "how  
>> they are
>> grouped and how the roots form some kind of mystical base meaning  
>> quite
>> apart from their appearances in the text of the Bible or other  
>> related
>> literature" is not something I recognize.
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list