Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 29/08/2005 06:32, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ...
>
> Occam’s razor says that the simplest answer is usually the correct one, not that 
> lexemes have multiple meanings. As it is, the simplest answer is that each word, 
> or lexeme, has one meaning, hence Occam’s razor would favor my working 
> hypothesis.
>
> I have not advanced the theory before this recent discussion, merely used the results 
> in previous discussions. It is interesting that when I reported the results in previous 
> discussions, it was rare for anyone to question how I came to the results that I had. 
> The questions were fewer than the fingers on one hand.
>  

Karl, we have had extensive discussions on this list before in which you 
have repeatedly insisted on your rejection of the basic principles of 
modern lexicography, and among more specific points your rejection of 
evidence from cognate languages which sometimes proves that there are 
multiple Hebrew roots with the same form. (A clear exmple of this proof 
is that there are two roots ayin-resh-bet, one meaning "evening" or 
"west" as in Arabic maghreb "the West, North Africa", and another 
meaning "nomad" as in Arabic `arab "Arab" - whereas presumably your 
method would imply that Hebrew `erev "evening" and `arav "nomad, Arab" 
have the same origin.) You have certainly had far more than five 
exchanges on this issue with me alone.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release Date: 26/08/2005