Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew
  • Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:14:58 +1000


Dear Isaac,

As you probably are already aware, any of the common BH lexicons is based upon a traditional understanding of phonemics: BDB, HALOT, etc. The results in these lexicons are overwhelmingly fruitful (of course, I am aware that the semantics of lexemes in the lexicons , and unlike your own approach which produces results which are downright wrong (in the case of pronominal compounding), entirely questionable (eg Gen 22:9), entirely subjective (how do "know" that G, H, X, K, Q are "equivalent", and not, say, G, H, P, R?), and for the most part gibberish (eg you "analysis" of various lexemes below).

A brief discussion of the study of phonemics in relation to BH in accessible works may be found in Joüon-Muraoka §5gb and Waktke-O'Connor §3.3.1.

It seems to me that your great error is having unwittingly attributed morphemic status to phonemes, and this is why the analysis and results are so confused (and confusing to everyone else). This also explains why the so-called "semantics" or "meaning" of your "phonemes" has to be, and is, so vague. Phonemes do not semantically mean anything, but rather contrast and distinguish meaning. It is morphemes which have semantics. This is where you have tripped up.

It also seems to me that you have avoided a response to my questions below, reput simply: Why can every other known language be analysed successfully using traditional phonemics, but BH is unique in that it cannot be? Crosslinguistic evidence would dictate strongly that you are more than likely wrong.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


David,

It is your turn now to bring us some examples to what you call "phonemic analysis" in Hebrew. But please, please, please don't send us to some obscure paper in some forlorn festschrift of which there are only seven copies in the entire world.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:12 PM, David Kummerow wrote:


Dear Isaac,

I'm afraid that your semantic analysis comes across to me as simply gibberish. The method is pure subjectivity. Like I said, we cannot discuss evidence such as Q$R and G$R before you accept the basics. However, you dismiss the basics of phonemic analysis. Phonemics is indeed a linguistic science despite your claim that it is not: it follows a clearly articulated methodology and produces results which may be reproduced and/or falsified. A textbook on phonemics or an introductory course would answer your question: "How can the elementary particle of language be defined in terms of this transcendental thing called 'meaning'?"

Every language that I am aware of may be analysed phonemically. Your claim is that BH cannot be. That claim requires substantial justification in the face of the overwhelming crosslinguistic evidence. In any case, BH has indeed been traditionally analysed following a method of normal phonemic analysis, the results of which produces a coherent linguistic system. I see no reason to abandon this in preference for a method which is entirely subjective, is relevant only for one language, and produces very questionable results.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


David,


I looked up 'phoneme' and this is what I find "In human language, a phoneme is the smallest posited structural unit that distinguishes meaning". Here lies the devil, in 'smallest', 'distinguishes', and 'meaning', all barely definable or ascertainable. How can the elementary particle of language be defined in terms of this transcendental thing called 'meaning'? And, all in retrospect relative to its change? I am really terribly sorry, but this can not pass for science. I know that phoneme is a YSOD MUSAD in indo-European linguistics, but I truly believe that we should abandon talk about it in Hebrew.

In the indo-European languages "distinguishing meaning" may be passable but not in Hebrew. If the roots Q$R and G$R have the same meaning, then Q and G are here equal phonemes [but different phones?], but if the two roots differ only slightly in meaning, then Q and G are only barely distinguishable phonemes [something between a phoneme and a phone?]. In Hebrew it is not all-or-nothing. In any event, all this is too bewildering to me and I am afraid that you get yourself entangled in something not worth getting even close to.
This is why I prefer the use of 'equivalent'. The letters G, H, X, K, Q are equivalent in the sense that if you substitute them in a Hebrew root, the root retains its basic meaning. Thus, the Hebrew roots G$R, [H$R], X$R, K$R, Q$R are equivalent, spawning words of only finely differentiated meaning. The words QE$ER, 'knot, relationship' and GE$ER, 'bridge', are different words, yet they are still the same. A GE$ER is but something that M-QA$ER, 'connects', the two sides of a river. The root H$R is not in use, but one can not understand what X$R [see XA$R-AT MAYIM of 2 Samuel 22:12, and XI$UR of 1 Kings 7:33] means without understanding that it is but a variant of Q$R. Thus, XA$R-AT (ABIM, is but QA$R-AT (ABIM, clouds tying into each other to form an unbroken canopy. The root K$R spawned the more abstract KA$ER and KA$IR, 'fit', being but QA$IR, 'connectable'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page