Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Stress

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: george.athas AT moore.edu.au
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Stress
  • Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:15:49 -0400

George,

Hebrew [and its sister languages] are different from all other languages of the earth [as far as I know] in that it is absolutely predicated upon a root system. Every [almost] Hebrew word can be traced back to a triliteral root. Here is something of mathematical certainty---literally a machine language. Imagine this The entire Hebrew bible with all its prose, poetry and prophecy is composed of no more than 3500 roots, many of them essentially identical.
A word is just a trigger to excite the brain---within a context. In this sense you are very right in your claim that the context makes the wider-sense meaning.
It stands to reason that Hebrew was not "born" with a triliteral root system, and that many roots are later additions. Indeed, there are many basic Hebrew words consisting of only one consonant [ignoring aleph and ayin], for example, AB, 'father, cloud', EM, 'mother', AX, 'brother', EL, 'god', AM, 'nation', EC, 'tree'. Some consist of repetitions: GAG, 'roof', DAD, 'breast', XAX, 'thorn', WAW, 'peg', CIC, 'shoot', SUS, 'horse'. Some consist of two consonants: XAM, GAL, PAX, YAD, HAR, KAR. I suggest that all Hebrew roots are composed of single consonant roots.
You are saying: "Under your system, it seems everything must have a current significance". You are absolutely right.
You are saying: "(3) You appear to have discounted the translation offered by others because it does not agree with your own translation. This is not scholarly engagement." It is not clear to me to what specific cases you refer, but I am surely entitled to my own ideas. One can "scholarly engage" with someone else by not agreeing with his ideas, even trying to refute his claims. Very often controversy sharpens the understanding and deepens the insights.
I keep saying "my opinion" to make sure that the reader understands that I am not quoting someone else. To put it bluntly I am not overly impressed with all "mainstream views". I am not beholden to no one's views, only to the truth as I see it. The people contributing to b- Hebrew come from different cultural and ideological backgrounds and have different views on different matters, and that's fine.
You are saying: "(5) Are you willing to admit that your opinion of Hebrew represents a
minority view which does not spring from a trajectory of mainstream research?". In fact, I am proudly willing to admit that my opinion may often be just a one man opinion. Still, this does not mean I am wrong, only that I am possibly more audacious, inventive, and liberal in my thinking.
Now back to the "paragogic he". We have in Hebrew "he-hayediah", "he- hashe'elah", "he-hamegamah", "he-hazeruz", and more he "prefixes" and "suffixes". I think it is incumbent upon us thinking men [and women] to at least try and explain this sudden versatility of letter he. This is the essence of scientific thinking. There must be some common factor in all these uses of letter he. What is it? Saying that it is a "historical throwback" is an easy way out.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Oct 7, 2007, at 5:45 PM, George Athas wrote:

Hi Isaac!

I have a few observations to make on your recent comments:

(1) Your view does not accommodate Hebrew as a literary language which
develops or is used differently by different people. Your view seem to treat
Hebrew as a generated or artificial language, like a computing language. This
would make it quite unique among the real languages of the world. Most
languages work not purely at the level of grammar, but rather at the level of
grammar and syntax. Meaning comes from how words interact. This allows for a
wide parameter of possibility in the way a person can express themselves. In
your system, there appears very little such room for expression, making it feel
far more like a machine language than a human language. The fact that Hebrew is
used to express such things as poetry and innuendo would seem to militate
against your theory.



(2) There is no such thing as an 'empty sound' in a language - everything
has some kind of significance, even if that significance is superfluous. To
call the particle -AH on the end of cohortative forms an 'empty sound' is to
caricature it as random. This is not what is being argued, however. To say that
the form is an historical throwback means that it had some significance at some
point, but that original significance may no longer be valid anymore. Under
your system, it seems everything must have a current significance. This view,
however, does not allow for the development of language. There are plenty of
languages even today which have such particles.



(3) You appear to have discounted the translation offered by others because
it does not agree with your own translation. This is not scholarly engagement.



(4) You keep using the word 'opinion' when talking about your theories.
This, coupled with your reaction to the phrase 'insufficient evidence',
suggests an unwillingness to engage mainstream views.



(5) Are you willing to admit that your opinion of Hebrew represents a
minority view which does not spring from a trajectory of mainstream research?





Best Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney)
1 King St, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia
Ph: (+61 2) 9577 9774

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page