Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Replaying

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: <pporta AT oham.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Replaying
  • Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:03:39 +0200

Pere,



You bring the examples of the acts DIBAR-TI, DIBER [any person markers in
DIBER?] and DIBR-U, but let's look at DIBR-AH. Here -HA is as you say a
person marker. But it is also a gender maker since it reveals to us the
gender of the speaker. Any question about the KOHEN family answered by HI)
identifies MARAT KOHEN. It is also a tense marker since it informs us of the
relative time frame of the act. So, -AH is here a three-in-one maker. On the
other hand in the noun DIBR-AH, 'saying', [as in (ASERET HA-DIBROT] the same
-AH is used to inform us something utterly irrelevant, namely the "gender" of
'saying'.



Indeed, it is inconceivable that the ancient Hebrews would have encumbered,
say, ')ADAM-AH, 'earth' with the "suffix" -AH just to inform us about
something that is utterly irrelevant, and that springs into existence post
factum only by dint of the -AH affixation, namely the "gender" of 'earth'. To
the contrary, after -AH is added, for whatever reason, the noun becomes
classified as "feminine" in the sense of requiring a matching coupler ending
for a qualifier as in )ADAM-AH TOB-AH, or as in D)AGAH (AMUQ-AH, 'deep
worry', and so on.



Indeed, it is inconceivable that the ancient Hebrews would have encumbered,
say, 'CALAX-AT, 'plate, dish' with the "suffix" -AT just to inform us about
something that is utterly irrelevant, and that springs into existence only as
a result of the -AT affixation, namely the "gender" of 'plate'. To the
contrary, after -AT is added, for whatever reason, the noun becomes
classified as "feminine" in the sense of requiring a matching coupler ending
for a qualifier as in CALAX-AT ROTAX-AT or QARAXA-AT ZORAX-AT.



Indeed, it is inconceivable that the ancient Hebrews would have encumbered,
say, ')ADER-ET, 'large [)ADIR] fur coat' with the "suffix" -ET just to inform
us about something that is utterly irrelevant, and that springs into
existence only by dint of the -ET affixation, namely the "gender" of 'coat'.
To the contrary, after -ET is added, for whatever reason, the noun becomes
classified as "feminine" in the sense of requiring a matching coupler ending
for a qualifier as in ')ADER-ET (OTER-ET.



Indeed, it is inconceivable that the Hebrews would have encumbered, say,
'KAP-IT, 'tea spoon' with the "suffix" -IT just to inform us about something
that is utterly irrelevant, and that springs into existence only after the
addition of the -IT suffix, namely the "gender" of 'tea spoon'. To the
contrary, after -IT is added, for whatever reason, the noun becomes
classified as "feminine" in the sense of requiring a matching coupler ending
for a qualifier as in KAP-IT XAGIG-IT or MAS)A-IT (ANAQ-IT, 'huge lorry'.



You know how foggy "different concepts" is. The example you bring is also not
very apt. Color and thickness are independent or disjoint properties, but
every [real] person has gender. MAR KOHEN is a person of the male kind, and
MARAT KOHEN is a person of the female kind. I can sympathize with the
feminists who say The hell with this distinctions, but we need to distinguish
between the two halves of the KOHEN family.



MAR KOHEN is a KANAR, while MARAT KOHEN is a KANAR-IT. Or, possibly, MAR
KOHEN is a PSANTR-AN, while MARAT KOHEN is a PSANTR-AN-IT.



Local conclusion: -AH, -AT, -ET, -IT are not gender markers. Global
conclusion: Hebrew does not have a marker specific for gender.



Isaac Fried, Boston University

----- Original Message -----
From: pporta AT oham.net
To: Isaac Fried
Cc: b-hebrew Hebrew
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Replaying



It has been my experience of many years that planting a new idea is easy
but supplanting an existing idea is nigh impossible. Planted ideas are the
MASMROT NTU(IM of Ecclesiastes 12:11. Explaining is also best done
interactively.

Yes.

You appear to agree with David that "gender-marking is not
person-marking!", so pray, explain to me first what is in your opinion a
Hebrew "gender-marking",

"Gender-marker" is every "device" that tells to the reader or the listener
which is the gender of the being/thing (person, object, animal, mind
being...) dealt with.

And so,

1. A final -AH is a "gender-marker" in "na(arAH", girl (Rt 2:6), compared
with "na(ar", boy (Gen 37:2)
2. A final -T is a "gender-marker" in "(omedeT" (Hag 2:5) compared with
"(omed" (Gen 18:8)


what is a Hebrew "person-marking", and why "gender-marking IS NOT [or can
not be] person-marking".

"Person-marker" is every "device" that tells to the reader or the listener
which is the person (I, you, he, we...) who/which speaks, acts... and so on...

Thus,

1. A final -TY is a "person-marker" in "dibarTY", I spoke (Js 1:3) compared
with "diber", he spoke (Gen 18:8)
2. An initial "Yi" is a "person-marker" AND at a time a "tense-marker" in
"yishlax", he will send (Gn 3:22) compared with 'shalax", he sent.
2. A final -U is a "person-marker" in "dibrU", they spoke (Gn 45:15),
compared with "diber", he spoke (Gen

Person-markers apply to verbs (or verb forms) and personal pronouns.

and why "gender-marking IS NOT [or can not be] person-marking".

These are two quite different concepts. The same as this: color and
thickness are differents things or concepts... and they can be found
coexisting together in a given object, let us say in a piece of chalk (a blue
thick piece of chalk or a thick blue piece of chalk) or not...
Now, can a color be or become thickness? Surely no!
Can thickness be or become a color? Surely no!

What can you argue against this?

Pere Porta
Barcelona (Spain)











Isaac Fried, Boston University


On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:54 AM, <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:


person-marking. I repeat: gender-marking is not person-marking!


David,


As regards noun-adjective, yes, I agree.


By the way, I think the problem with Isaac Fried is this: either he
does not
want to strive to explain things in such a manner that most of us can
understand what he says.... or really his theories, statements,
assertions
and so on are without any solid base.


If it is the first thing .... there is no point in keeping discussing
with
him. And if it is the second thing... ... the same!


If he sincerely thinks he is right, he should do every effort to
explain his
ideas... specially when some of listers have read his writing/s
--whose URL
Isaac himself gave us here some days ago-- and his ideas or message
did not
become clearer to readers after reading it/them.


This is, imho, the central issue, the core thing with him.


Pere Porta
Barcelona


[cut]


__________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page