Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47: What Foreign Language Is That?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47: What Foreign Language Is That?
  • Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:17:08 -0500

David,

It appears to me that you got what I am saying, to wit your judgement that "this proposal is most unlikely (actually, I would go as far as to say impossible)." I wish you would have given us a reasoned explanation why this is impossible.
Hebrew may easily pack six personal pronouns in one word. This is how spoken Hebrew keeps producing more and more words out of the same root.
Superficiality, in my opinion, is a tremendous virtue in linguistics. Being overly sophisticated may readily lead one to overshoot the target. Language is a very very simple device.
Let's be concrete and see if we can find some common ground. Do you agree that the inflected verb $AMART, 'you [female singular] guarded' is the coming together of the act $AMAR and the following personal pronoun AT for the actor, or is this last T just an abstract morpheme, a mere adjunct grammatical marker?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:06 AM, David Kummerow wrote:


Hi Isaac,

I think you need to explain what you mean by "function" and "meaning"
below, specifically: "I don't dispute the function of -UT. Our
disagreement is on its meaning."

If you agree on the function of the morpheme -ut, it would seem to me
that your disagreement then is not so much over meaning but on the
historical make-up of the form, i.e. that it is a fusion and
grammaticalisation from two (!) independent personal pronouns. However,
given the function of the morpheme, this proposal is most unlikely
(actually, I would go as far as to say impossible). It is also
unsubstantiated, and is as "superficial" as your treatment of the
English data, which I will not go into.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


George,

I am really, really sorry that you were offended by my choice of
words. I surely had no intention, be it the slightest, of
caricaturing your statement, except of recasting it into my own words
for the sake of my own apprehension.
For the record, I don't dispute the function of -UT. Our disagreement
is on its meaning. It is still my understanding that you are saying -
UT is inherently meaningless [except for it being an abstract
grammatical marker], while I contend it is a personal pronoun, or a
string thereof.
I would be greatly reluctant to comment on the formation of English
words, but it superficially appears to me that the suffix -ism is the
compound [via Latin etc., etc.] of the substantives is-am or is-in. I
am not sure what is the meaning of the suffix -tion, but in any
event, the consensus is that it is meaningless as a stand-alone.
I am also surprised and saddened by your qualification of my sincere
effort, be it extra consensual, to explain my ideas about the Hebrew
language as "condescending rhetoric".

Isaac Fried, Boston University



_______________________________________________
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