[b-hebrew] Recreating the Origins of Language

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Mon Feb 25 08:19:54 EST 2013


I am sorry to say, but you are, following the fallacious and confused  
lead of the so
called Linguists, תועה בשדה roaming the fields. All you say,  
following the linguists
with their silly computer programs, is irrelevant to Hebrew. The  
situation in Hebrew
is obvious even without these parroting "computer programs".

1. First we observe that all the attachments אותיות השמוש  
to a Hebrew word are
adhered distinct words, namely,ZE, $E, LE, BE KE.

2. All other attachments are personal pronouns for an act (in a verb)  
or for a thing (in a noun).

3. The insertions U and I (as well as E and O), essentially HU and  
HI, are likewise
personal pronouns.

4. Stripped of these, the Hebrew word reveals its bare root (root!).

5. Take, for instance, the root GML (or GAMAL, with an A added so  
that the root my be sounded).
Examining all Hebrew roots (as I did in my book: the Analytic and  
Synthetic Etymology of the Hebrew Language)
one realizes that the root itself is a composition of more  
fundamental elements, or building blocks.
These are existence markers and a plurality marker (as are the  
English: be, is, on, are, all, of, at, etc.).

6. Namely, the root GAMAL consists by itself of the combination of  
the single consonant
roots GA-AM-AL. In this, GA is the essence of גאה GAAH, MA is the  
essence of מאה MAAH,
and AL (or LA) is the essence of עלה ALAH, or לאה LAAH. The  
beast גמל GAMAL
is thus "the massive and lofty thing".

7 Enters reason, understanding, imagination, as well as shared  
experience, and extends
the root to kindred images, both tangible and abstract. Thus, from  
GML Hebrew generated
also גמול GAMUL, 'developed, weaned', and גמול GMUL, 'reward'.

8. Other languages or dialects may variously apply this root to  
similar situations. Say the
Arabic names GAMIL (JAMIL as they prefer to pronounce it) and  
GAMILAH, 'the beautiful,
the accomplished, the ample and tall, the fully developed'.

9. Now that we have accomplished the reconstruction of Hebrew from  
its elementary constituents
we have reached the very essence of the language; this is the very  
"proto" language. There can be
nothing more "proto" than this.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 24, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Will Parsons wrote:

> Hi Isaac,
>
> First of all, thank you for bringing the subject back to Hebrew, since
> neither my reply nor the post I was responding to mentioned Hebrew,
> but were addressing more general linguistic matters.
>
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:05:00 -0500, Isaac Fried <if at math.bu.edu>  
> wrote:
>> Would not Hebrew be better since it needs barely a reconstruction?
>
> I don't see how.  The question is, how far is it possible to
> reconstruct an assumed proto-language on the basis of modern, purely
> spoken descendents, and how far one can verify such a reconstruction.
>
> Hebrew of course is considered part of the Semitic family of
> languages, part of a larger Afro-Asiatic family.  How would the
> computer reconstruction work here?  Unlike the scenario of the article
> using the Austronesian languages, where one has a multitude of modern
> languages/dialects, but essentially no historical written evidence,
> the situation of the Semitic languages seems to me to be precisely the
> opposite.
>
> One has a dearth of Semitic languages that have survived to modern
> times.  Of course, Arabic has been a huge success, dividing into a
> spectrum of modern spoken dialects unified by a common literary
> language (somewhat similar to the position of early Romance dialects
> vis-à-vis literary Latin in mediaeval times).  I'm not sure about the
> situation of the African branch of the Semitic languages (i.e., the
> descendents of Ge`ez), but in the Asiatic branch, first Aramaic seems
> to have eclipsed other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and
> Akkadian, and then Arabic eclipsed Aramaic.
>
> Modern Hebrew is of course the "other" modern Asiatic-Semitic
> language, apart from Arabic, but because of its revivification, does
> not make itself an ideal candidate for historical comparison.  (I
> understand that Aramaic still survives, but I suspect has been heavily
> Arabicized, and may be of marginal status).
>
>> On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Will Parsons wrote:
>>
>>> The good test case is that of the Romance languages
>>
> -- 
> Will Parsons

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130225/6813b2fb/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list