Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Isaac:

The reasons I consider this discussion closed are contained in your
paragraph below. That is a statement of philosophy, not linguistics. I do
not think there is any support for that philosophic position within the
linguistics of Biblical Hebrew.

While there are many nouns even in Biblical Hebrew that are not connected
with any roots (some of them are recognizably loanwords, how many of those
not recognizably loanwords yet are?), those that are connected with roots
invariably show a connection to the function, i.e. action, indicated by the
root. This is what I notice as a lexicographer, not a philosophic
presupposition that I have imposed onto Hebrew.

What you describe may be true of modern Israeli Hebrew, but that's a
language that I don't know.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 6/19/07, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> Karl,
>
> I am afraid you commit a grave and fundamental error in mixing up the root
> [SHORESH], the act [POAL], and the noun [SHEM]. The root is a material
> state; there is nothing else it can be. It becomes an act in the presence of
> actors who cause a body to assume the state indicated by the root. A noun
> refers to a body having the properties indicated by the root.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Jun 19, 2007, at 11:21 AM, K Randolph wrote:
>
> Isaac:
>
> I am merely a lexicographer, not a philosopher nor theologian,
> therefore I will not enter into a philosophic argument whether or not
> "...and there can not be, a Hebrew root of the meaning "to be
> unknown"". Rather, in using a concordance to examine its uses in
> Tanakh, and comparing it to synonyms and contrasting to antonyms, as
> well as analyzing noun and other derivatives from the same root, "to
> be(come) unknown" is the closest equivalence in modern English.
>
> Secondly, in analyzing Biblical Hebrew usages, your claim "The hebrew
> root indicates a material state." cannot be maintained; even most
> nouns refer to actors, not static objects.
>
> Your objections appear to be philosophic, not linguistic, and as such,
> I consider this discussion closed.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.