Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yaakov,

Oh, how I hate this pair of words "insufficient evidence". There is  
never sufficient evidence for no nothing. As a scientist you should  
that there is "insufficient evidence" even for such fundamental laws  
of nature as conservation of energy and conservation of mass. If you  
insist on "sufficient evidence", then the world will come to a  
standstill.
In my opinion Hebrew (like nature) is absolutely systematic. It  
consists entirely of roots and personal pronouns. If a letter is not  
radical, then it is a personal pronoun. Admittedly, it is not much to  
work with, yet Hebrew manages admirably.
In the word (ACMA)-U-T, 'independence', from the root (CM, the  
endings -U-T = HU)-AT, are two personal pronouns for the thing  
itself. It is to be distinguished from (ACMA)-I = (CMA)-HI), '[he is]  
independent', (ACMA)-I-T = (ACMA)-HI)-AT, '[she is] independent',  
(ACM-AH = (ACMA-HI), 'strength', (CM-AT, '[the] strength [of]', (ACM- 
U-T = (ACM-HU)-AT, 'essence', (ACM-I = 'self', (ACM-I-U-T = (ACM-HI)- 
HU)-AT, '[the] essence [of]'.
In (ACAM-O-T = (ACAM-HU)-AT, the O = HU) is for the plural and the T  
= AT is for the gender. Sorry, but that's all Hebrew has to work with  
and we need to patiently bear with her.
Of course, the words (ACMA)UT, 'independence', and (ACAMOT, 'bones'  
are related. They are related by their common progenitor, the root  
(CM, 'to be massive, to be strong, to be substanial'.
The final H is a personal pronoun, not necessarily feminine. I have a  
well thumbed copy of Zeidel's Hikrei Lashon somewhere here, but I  
need to find it.
The word "paragogic H" is never going to cross the threshold of my  
lips because it demeans the Hebrew language.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Oct 6, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote:

> Isaac,
>
> Please do not misunderstand my statements.
> I am not sticking blindly to traditional grammar books,
> and I have a lot of respect for researchers who try to systematically
> discover the original forms using internal evidence and logical  
> reasoning.
>
> However, as a scientist, I am also rather skeptical about theories
> based on insufficient evidence.
>
> To show you what I mean, imagine someone 1000 years from now
> trying to understand the terminating WT in various words in modern  
> Hebrew.
> He comes across  )CM)WT  (independence).
> Someone tells him that the terminating WT is such words is
> pronounced ut and is different from the terminating WT in
> )CMWT  (bones) which indicates a plural form.
>
> But our researcher is unconvinced. He doesn't believe that Hebrew
> speakers idiosyncratically distorted and bloated their words,
> and claims that we can not be sure how the WT was pronounced
> and that all WT meant plural forms. This leads him to conclude
> that independence comes from bones, and he theorizes that
> this derived from Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones.
>
> OK, our researcher gets a paper out of this, but WE know that
> it is nonsense.
>
> How can we conclude that ALL terminal H mean feminine forms ?
> Zeidel (Hikrei Lashon) gives examples of terminal H as an archaic  
> plural form.
> We certainly have the directive final H.
> So why is the paragogic H the only one you can't accept ?
>
> Y(J)S