Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Thursday 10 July 2003 10:38, Walter R. Mattfeld wrote:
> Dave Washburn wrote:
> "Why do we have to assume that the term resulted from direct borrowing from
> the
> Akkadian term?  The most we can say, ISTM, is that they are related, most
> likely both descending from a proto-Semitic term.  The fact that the two
> terms seem to be related cannot be adduced as proof that the Hebrew term is
> nothing more than a loanword that came about because of Assyrian conquest.
> This strikes me as nothing more than another unfounded assumption, based on
> the notion that the Hebrews never had an original thought in their
> collective
> life."
>
> Dear Dave,
>
> Are you saying that AT NO TIME EVER did the Hebrews accept into the Hebrew
> language "loanwords" ?

Please don't put words in my fingers, Walter.  You know that's not what I 
said.

> If you DO ALLOW that "loanwords" could have been accepted into the Hebrew
> language why the "fuss" ?

See Michael's post.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"God does a lot of things in the Psalms
that He can't get away with in systematic theology."