Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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