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: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47: What Foreign Language Is That?
  • Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:31:18 +1100

Hi Isaac,

It seems to me that you are backtracking here. I thought you said to George that you agreed with him regarding the function of the morpheme -ut that it may function as a marker of abstraction?

In any case, it is not me you simply disagree with, but any standard reference work. You would need to interact with the data they raise than simple assert your view.

Again, I suggest to you that personal pronouns cannot combine willy-nilly, they are not the building blocks of language. In any case, you have not demonstrated how this is possible under any theory of language. Further, how it is functionally possible or even useful to combine, even co-combine in some of your more extreme suggestions, personal pronouns which distinguish separate speech participants. -ut cannot simultaneously point out an addressee and a third-person referent as this is clearly not the plain or obvious semantics of the form. The same for your other examples you have repeatedly posted to this list.

How can pronouns, which designate separate speech participants, be combined into a compound form? I can answer the question for you: they don't. Nevertheless, please either raise evidence supporting your view, preferably situating it within standard linguistics (even better pronominal theory, I can provide references if you desire), or please give us all a break from your continual airing of your extreme assertions. We all know what you think, so we don't need to be repeatedly reminded as if we had somehow forgotten. You are tiring the list.

Sincerely,
David Kummerow.



David,

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you. -UT is not an abstraction marker as you assume it to be. In my humble opinion there is no such thing in Hebrew as an abstraction marker. The ancient Hebrews surely did not distinguish in their mind between the concrete and the abstract and had therefore no use for such a special marker. -UT is rather an identity marker, or a combination of two such markers, aka personal pronouns. A noun is a name for a thing, and this [compound] marker identifies the thing.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Nov 26, 2007, at 5:59 PM, David Kummerow wrote:

Hi Isaac,

What I mentioned in my post is neither abstract nor vague, but precisely what you need to demonstrate in order for your theory to be listened to. It is a straight-forward way for you to progress. You want to repeatedly combine personal pronouns together, but you need to articulate how this is functionally achieved, and to also bring examples where this process may be seen. Until you do so you will unlikely gain any adherents. (Of course, this is all just hypothetical from my point of view as I am entirely certain that such combining of separate marked speech participants is linguistically impossible. Possible under some theory, of which you are an example, but not in the real world.)

In any case, what you list below is entirely different from what we are discussing. As I mentioned previously, verbal BH inflections may indeed be diachronically related to independent personal pronouns. But this is a separate matter to saying that -ut = hu' + 'attah. Due to their definite and specific semantics, personal pronouns cannot be building blocks of new vocabulary nor new morphemes willy-nilly, and especially could not combine together into new compound forms of the like you repeatedly inform us of if they had not lost their marking of distinct speech participants. What would be the speaker's need to combine hu' + 'attah to produce -ut, an abstraction marker? How can these forms which designate separate speech participants be combined in this manner? Why and how did they lose their speech participant meaning? And if it is now a compound form with no marking of speech participants, why keep referring to the diachonic makeup of the form when this is no longer apparent both formally nor functionally (I am just going along here with the argument as I do not accept that this is the diachonic heritage of the morpheme in question)?

Until you substantively address any of these issues rather than assert, I do not have the time nor desire to respond. Indeed, I am of like mind to Dr Lehmann.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

David,
I have horror of abstract arguments and vague courses of reasoning. If you are interested in keeping this discussion going, then we must keep it concrete and focused. I asked you if you [not some doctoral candidate at MIT] agree that
$AMART = $AMAR+AT
$AMARTA = $AMAR+ATAH
$AMARNU = $AMAR+ANU
$AMARTEM = $AMAR+ATEM where AT, ATAH, ANU and ATEM are the stand-alone Hebrew personal pronouns, but did not receive a clear answer. These equalities are so obvious, or apparently obvious, that they have surly been observed over time by many a discerning Hebraist. As I said before, even the usually reticent Gesenius remarks on it somewhere in his grammar book. Also on the similar composite structure of the prefixed forms. Isaac Fried, Boston University







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page