Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Isaac:

I guess what you can say of me is:
כי בער אנכי ולא בינת אדם לי
I don't understand how you come to your conclusions. For example, I
don't see how $RR שרר which means to chain in, to keep in line, hence
also a prince whose job is to enforce the laws, to keep the people in
line, has anything to do with "acts or states of breaking, crushing,
and disintegration." I see it as having the opposite implication.
Similarly SRR סרר which means to be sullen, showing resentment and ill
humor by morose, unsociable withdrawal derived from a suppressed
anger, feeling one was not treated right. Or how about )CR אצר to
treasure up? I just don't see the connections.

For lack of understanding, I guess I'm left with to "continue to
wallow in dictionaries, concordances, loan words, 'cognate languages'
and so on."

Karl W. Randolph.

On 12/8/06, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> Karl:
> I will tell you what in my humble opinion the root BR)=BARA means. It
> consists of the composition BA+RA where BA is a marker of existence
> or substantiation, as is the English word 'be', and the marker of
> plurality or aggregation RA. Thus all BARA means is 'to exist in an
> aggregated state'.
>
> Every Hebrew root that contains the letter R refers to a varied state
> of existence (see: www.hebrewetymology.com).
>
> If you accept this from me, then heavens will open and you will see
> Hebrew in all its glory. Otherwise you will continue to wallow in
> dictionaries, concordances, loan words, 'cognate languages' and so on.
>
> As I grew up we used to read the Hebrew Bible every day. We did not
> have a dictionary nor a concordance at home; still I understood every
> word of it.
>
> God did not borrow words from 'cognate languages' to transmit his
> divine message.
> Isaac Fried
>
> On Dec 6, 2006, at 1:02 PM, K Randolph wrote:
>
> > Isaac:
> >
> > You are using your theories of etymology based on form to assign
> > definitions of words. I don't think that is right. I think the correct
> > way is to look up the words in their actual uses, their function, and
> > speculate about common origin only if the functions show a commonality
> > as well.
> >