Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

David,

You have said

"Actually, I said, and have said, a lot more than that."

I know. I would greatly prefer, though, to stay focused on one thing  
at a time.

I have said it often and very clearly before, and I will say it again:

Every U and I in a Hebrew word is a universal identity marker [aka  
personal pronoun], invariably.

There is no such thing in Hebrew as a "vowel", except for A. The idea  
of the vowel is an alien carry-over into Hebrew from Indo-European  
grammar.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:06 AM, David Kummerow wrote:

> Hi Isaac,
>
> Actually, I said, and have said, a lot more than that.
>
> Your failure to address such foundational issues as raised is  
> telling. As I said before, I will no longer waste my time  
> responding unless you choose to address mine and others' arguments.  
> I have better things to do than interact with nonsense ideas having  
> no linguistic basis.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
>
> > David, You are saying
> > "Isaac, whenever I see a 'u' and an 'i' I see a vowel -- not  
> > necessary a person-number-gender (PNG) inflection. I don't know  
> > why you say I see it when I don't, esp. when I keep pointing out  
> > that this is so."
> > Of course you see --- God blessed you with eyesight. But you fail,  
> > I am afraid, to understand what you are seeing. The rest is a  
> > corollary to the above.
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> > On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:48 PM, David Kummerow wrote:
> > > Hi Isaac,
> > >
> > > See comments below:
> > >
> > >
> > > > David,
> > > > Whenever you look at an U and an I [also O and E] in a Hebrew  
> > > > word you see a universal identity marker [also known as a  
> > > > personal pronoun], invariably.
> > >
> > > Isaac, whenever I see a 'u' and an 'i' I see a vowel -- not  
> > > necessary a person-number-gender (PNG) inflection. I don't know  
> > > why you say I see it when I don't, esp. when I keep pointing out  
> > > that this is so.
> > >
> > >
> > > If T is not radical, then it is a personal pronoun,
> > > > invariably. I have said this repeatedly on this list [also, of  
> > > > course, in my book, which can be seen in its entirety at  
> > > > www.hebrewetymology.com <http://www.hebrewetymology.com>].
> > >
> > > That is simply false and this type of mistake lies at the very  
> > > heart of your erroneous methodology. /t/ as a phoneme in BH is  
> > > open to be used: 1) within the 'root' for any given word; 2)  
> > > within the paradigm of independent personal pronouns; 3) as  
> > > verbal and nominal marking of PNG; and 4) within any other  
> > > morpheme with various functions, eg -ut. So basically anywhere.  
> > > It seems to me you do not understand what phonemic status  
> > > entails. /t/ as a phoneme is not constrained to equate solely to  
> > > either a 'root' letter or a marker of PNG. The fact that you  
> > > insist this is so is a mystery to me. You attempt some sort of  
> > > advanced linguistic analysis of Hebrew, yet you seem to not have  
> > > a sufficient grasp of foundational linguistic methodology.
> > >
> > > > It is for illustrative purposes only that I specifically read - 
> > > > U- as HU), and -I- as HI). Consider the example of $-U-LAX, $AL- 
> > > > U-AX, and $ALX-U, of the root $LX, 'send'. Even though the  
> > > > latter means 'THEY have sent' I permit myself to read it as $ALX- 
> > > > HU) by virtue of the universality of U.
> > >
> > > There is no sense to 'illustrative purposes' if it is just plain  
> > > wrong. In any case, there is nothing 'universal' about 'u'. As a  
> > > vowel, it is not constrained for use simply as a marker of PNG.  
> > > The phonemic status of /u/ dictates that this is so. It is  
> > > secondary to this that this vowel is used in some situations as a  
> > > marker of PNG. Moreover, I think $-U-LAX and $AL-U-AX are  
> > > figments of your imagination: they form no part of the paradigm  
> > > for $LX. You see PNG marking where morphemes semantically  
> > > indicate something entirely different -- but now in this case  
> > > you're even adding vowels in for extra pronouns! Once you begin  
> > > to operate with the methodology you do, it seems there's no end  
> > > to how many pronouns you can 'find'!
> > >
> > > > I am preparing now a reply to Kenneth Greifer in which I will  
> > > > elaborate on this in some greater detail. Isaac Fried, Boston  
> > > > University
> > >
> > > I wish you wouldn't. We all know what you think, and since it has  
> > > no basis in reality it is better you kept your views to yourself  
> > > to save tiring the list with any more of this.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > David Kummerow.