Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Dear Isaac,

Again you unfortunately display an ignorance of linguistics which allows 
you to retain your etymological theories without modification. Of course 
general linguistics can define meaning/semantics. In fact, I've repeated 
to you the fact that phonemics articulates a coherent methodology the 
results of which may be easily reproduced and/or falsified. I see no 
such thing in your own approach; indeed, it would appear wholly subjective.

Sadly, your "ideas about the structure of the Hebrew word" do not 
deserve careful consideration. As I've repeatedly demonstrated, your 
method lacks a reliable linguistic basis. Since you've set out from the 
beginning with an erroneous methodology and assumptions which have no 
basis in linguistic reality, your results therefore have no basis in 
linguistic reality. Your first mistake (other than getting skilled in 
the linguistic methodology necessary to conduct a work such as yours) 
was to attribute morphemic status to phonemes. This is the root of the 
error and from this root grows everything else.

I guess I should take my own advice regarding the above and end my half 
of the discussion here. My hope is that you will look into the 
foundational problem with your method, correct it, and move on to more 
productive and fruitful etymological work. You seem to have much time 
and energy for such work which many people don't, and it would be 
fantastic if you could contribute some worthwhile research that does 
merit careful consideration.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> David,
>
>
> Yes, but the whole thing is useless or trivial or sheer waste of time. 
> Linguistics requires that the 'linguistic unit' under consideration be 
> first ascertained to be meaningful (and minimal!) to qualify for 
> morpheme status, but it does not tell us how to achieve this knowledge. 
> Once I know the meaning of a certain 'linguistic unit' I don't need 
> linguistics to tell me it is a morpheme. It is what it means to be. This 
> is tautology at its best.
>
> My ideas about the structure of the Hebrew word merit careful 
> consideration, rather than derision. It is pity, but instead of 
> concentrating on Hebrew we waste our time on the barren word inventions 
> and interplays of Indo-European linguistics.
>
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University