Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

David,

I would love to discuss with you Hebrew etymology, but each time we  
start you interrupt the discussion by lunging at me with the morpheme  
the phoneme, and this thing called "phonemic and morphemic analysis".
I hope you realize that whenever you claim something to be a morpheme  
you need to fall back on the definition and PROVE it to be so by  
showing that it satisfies ALL posited conditions.
Hebrew etymology has nothing to do with linguistics. People have  
analyzed the structure and meaning of Hebrew words for thousands of  
years prior to the morpheme the phoneme and the phonemic and  
morphemic analysis.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 25, 2008, at 6:56 PM, David Kummerow wrote:

> Dear Isaac,
>
> It seems to me that you are again unable to provide answers to the
> critique levelled at your position and do not engage with, or seek to
> understand, linguistic methodology proper so that you can still  
> hold on
> to your fallacious view of linguistics, the language of BH, and
> etymological reconstructions.
>
> Look, you wanted to converse in "plain" English, so I attempted a
> definition of "morpheme" for you that was in plain English. Now you  
> just
> want to nit-pick. Of course I could define "morpheme" more  
> elaborately,
> and also define the words I did use: "unit", "bears", and "meaning".
> Comparing the definition I gave and reading the sections I pointed  
> to in
> Joüon-Muraoka and Waltke-O'Connor would, if you wanted to see,  
> elaborate
> the point and flesh out more of what "morpheme" means. The answer's
> there if you want it.
>
> If your view of linguistics is that it is "but one big tautology", why
> don't you just stay clear of it and stick with mathematics? Why  
> write a
> book on etymology if you do not understand the basics of the required
> methodology, viz. phonemic and morphemic analysis (of course, there's
> more to than simply this; one also has to be familiar with historical
> linguistics, etc.)? I'm sure you would take to task someone who
> attempted some algebraic maths without having first come to grips with
> how to add, subtract, etc. Similarly, etymological reconstruction  
> cannot
> be done without first knowing some linguistic basics.
>
> I find it quite ironic that someone who does not understand  
> linguistics
> claims that linguistics is "but one big tautology"! My suspicion is  
> that
> claiming that linguistics is "but one big tautology" is but a cop-out
> indicating (a) that you don't want to budge from your position, even
> when proven wrong; and (b) you will never budge from your position,  
> even
> when proven wrong. I more than willing to be proven wrong on these two
> points!
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew