Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

B-Listim

In some previous lists the question arose as to how roots turn into  
nouns. Here are my thoughts as to how it is done in Hebrew.

1. A noun [possibly of an earlier strata] may retain the root form  
except for the addition of 'A' sounds to make the word pronounceable.  
A good example would be GAMAL, גָּמָל, 'camel', of the root GML.  
It consists, in my opinion, of the three single-consonat roots GA-AM- 
AL, that independently exist in expanded form as G)H-M)H-(LH, namely,  
'high-massive-elevated', exactly describing the beast.

2. One of the letters M, N, T, extracted from the personal pronouns  
ANIY, AT, ATAH, HEM, is made to precede the root to mark the object  
itself. Such are, for example: TAXMAS = ATAH-XAMAS, תַּחְמָס,  
'a bird of prey', TO(APAH = AT-HU-(APAH, תּוֹעָפָה, 'a peak',  
MA)AKAL = MA-)AKAL, מַאֲכָל, 'that which is edible, food'.  
NIDBAK = NI-DBAK [considered "Aramaic"], 'course of bricks'.

3. One or two of the personal pronouns I [E], U [O] are inserted  
inside the root. Such are, for example, taken at random: NAZIYR = NAZ- 
HI-R, נָזִיר, 'abstainer', ZBUB = ZB-HU-B, 'fly', KINOR = K-HI-N- 
HU-R, כִּנּוֹר, 'fiddle', XITAH, חִטָּה, 'wheat'.

4. One of the letters N, T, extracted from the personal pronouns  
ANIY, AT, ATAH, is made to succeed the root to mark the object  
itself. Such are, for example: )AMTAXAT =)AMTAX-AT,  
אַמְתַּחַת, 'sack', GAZIYT = GAZ-HI-AT, גָּזִית,  
'hewn stone', GALUT = GAL-HU-AT, גָּלוּת, 'exile, diaspora',  
DUKIYPAT = D-HU-K-HI-P-AT, דּוּכִיפַת, 'hoopoe', QARAXAT =  
QARAX-AT, קָרַחַת, 'baldness', KIB$AN = K-HI-B$-AN,  
כִּבְשָׂן, 'furnace, kiln', RAXAMAN = RAXAM-AN,  
רַחֲמָן, 'merciful' [in the HB only RAXAMANIYOT = RAXAM-AN-HI- 
HU-AT].

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:51 AM, K Randolph wrote:

> 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.