Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Mon Nov 5 11:04:11 EST 2012
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 06:06:42 -0500, Isaac Fried wrote
> 1. So, explain to me, please, what is this TA- of TAKLIYT, that even
> you agree is not radical. Saying that it is a "prefix" means
> nothing beyond restating that it is not radical, and hangs at the
> beginning of the word.
saying that it is "atah" does not provide any info either, since obviously the
info in "atah" (second person, singular) has nothing to do with the noun,
which is typically third person and often plural.
so, the question is what do you mean by "explain". grammar explains things by
their functionality. hence, a prefix which turns a verb into an abstract noun
is a perfect explanation for the initial T:
KLH (v) --> T-KL-IT
where the prefix T- turns it into a noun and the final suffix indicates
feminine singular. now, beyond functionality, if you ask me what was the
process which led to choosing T- of all the other possibilities, i will say
that "atah" will not be my first candidate: i would posit first the dative
preposition "et", for being normally attached to nouns.
but i admit that speculation at this level is a bit
futile. maybe comparative semitics can help, but you do not accept it either.
> 2. So explain to me, please, how do you come to the conclusion that the
> root of TAKLIYT is כלה KLH.
look at the example from Neh. the meaning there is, undoubtedly, the END of
(i.e. a point in space where a certain construction terminates). this must
be from KLH=terminate. i will not discuss the other examples, i concede they
can be understood in more than one way. in the example discussed (job 15)
KLH (exhaustion) as i expalin sounds to me more logical than KLL (contain).
but again, the game of associations is just a game and not all minds see the
> 3. I have not the slightest interest in Chomsky (the son.)
More information about the b-hebrew