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: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: 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 08:23:16 -0400

David,

I think that by now we have come full circle, and are also possibly taxing the patience of the other members of this list.
You are saying that the morpheme is the "smallest linguistic unit that bears meaning". I could take you to task as to what is 'smallest', what is 'unit' and what is 'bears', but suffice it to say that it relies on this vague and ill defined concept of 'meaning', making the science of linguistics appear to me as but one big tautology.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 25, 2008, at 12:59 AM, David Kummerow wrote:


Dear Isaac,

There is nothing really ill-defined about the traditional analysis of BH
phonemes to date. However, there is with yours since you mistakenly
attribute morphemic status to phonemes. It seems you are not even sure
what a morpheme is ("I think that 'morpheme' is just a high sounding
coverup for 'I don't know what this thing is'."), yet you persistently
attempt etymological reconstruction of every BH lexeme! People do NOT
use the term "morpheme" as a cover-up for not knowing what something is,
but for a label of the smallest linguistic unit that bears meaning. That
is consistent -- there is no cover-up. The only one operating with an
ill-defined concept of phoneme and morpheme seems to be you Isaac. Hence
it is not surprising that you reach results that only you accept!

Regarding an example, there is a couple of examples in Joüon- Muraoka if
you will but look. I also personally gave some examples on how to do it
when we were discussing your theory of pronominal compounding which
demonstrated your theory to be fallacious.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


David,


I see that "morphemes are composed of phonemes" so that if a phoneme is
ill defined, then a morpheme is also ill defined, and then it results
that there is no such thing as "phonemic analysis". I think that
'morpheme' is just a high sounding coverup for 'I don't know what this
thing is'. Everything that has form is a morpheme.

The thing is that all this high sounding, ill defined terminology is
counterproductive. The structure and composition of the Hebrew word can
be fully and successfully discussed in plain English.

I looked up Joüon-Muraoka but saw there nothing to enlighten me.

I still think you should give us some examples as to how to perform a
phonemic analysis in Hebrew and point out to us the benefits of such an
analysis.


Isaac Fried, Boston University


On Jun 24, 2008, at 9:21 PM, David Kummerow wrote:

EDIT: Sorry, I got interrupted and didn't finish a correction to a
sentence before I inadvertently sent the previous email. Please
disregard it in preference for the one below.


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 can be refined,
but this does not detract from the overall approach), 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



_______________________________________________
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


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page