Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Here's some quotable quotes from our resident linguistic sceptic Isaac 
that I've gathered in my discussions with him in the recent months. 
While they're quite good for a laugh, they also give a snapshot into the 
subjective, imaginative, and fanciful nature of his work as all of his 
claims below are all asserted without supporting evidence. But it's 
ultimately a waste of time trying to point out the errors of his work as 
his opinion on anything challenging his view is summed up succinctly in 
a quotation below: "[I] DON’T GIVE A HOOT." Which explains his common 
"response" of simply not replying when his error has been clearly 
pointed out, allowing him to "maintain" his view without modification.

It's rather comical that someone with only a smattering of linguistic 
knowledge (enough to get himself into difficulty; see last quote where 
it is clear that he is entirely confused over phonemic status in 
suggesting that phonemes(!) "represent the seven fundamental, or 
primitive, concepts of language") embarks on a pseudo-linguistic 
etymological study, claims that linguistics is only for students of 
linguistics and that etymological study has nothing to do with 
linguistics(!), makes absurd claims regarding pronominal compounding and 
number of vowels, attributes morphemic status to phonemes -- and yet 
STILL wants to claim that his ideas are "the most significant, if not 
the ultimate, contribution to the understanding of the Hebrew language 
in the last 1000 years"!!! Read on:


“Hebrew may easily pack six personal pronouns in one word.” 
[https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-November/034588.html]

“There is no such thing in Hebrew as a ‘vowel’, except for A. The idea 
of the vowel is an alien carry-over into Hebrew from Indo-European 
grammar.” 
[https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-November/034625.html]

“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.” 
[https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2008-June/035935.html]

“Hebrew etymology has nothing to do with linguistics.” 
[https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2008-June/035950.html]

“Linguistics is not an exact science, if at all, and one can not 
‘demonstrate’ anything by the force of its use.” 
[https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2008-June/035964.html]

“What you call ‘linguistic methodology’ is of concern to students of 
linguistics only, it has no bearing whatsoever on the study of Hebrew 
etymology and grammar. For example, the question if a certain 
‘linguistic unit’ is a morpheme or not is of interest to a linguistics 
student only, wanting on a test to please his professor and get a good 
grade. Otherwise, the correct answer to this question is WE DON’T GIVE A 
HOOT.” [https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2008-June/035964.html]

“The whole edifice of the Hebrew language, its Semitic relatives, and 
possibly also the tongues of the West, is composed of seven phonemes 
representing the seven fundamental, or primitive, concepts of language. 
These immutable fundamental concepts are the building blocks of meaning, 
and each root of the language is compiled of at least one such concept. 
In writing, the fundamental concepts are accurately, and invariably, 
fixed by certain letters.” [The Analytic and Synthetic Etymology of the 
Hebrew Language, p.1]

“You […] mak[e] a grave mistake in spurning my ideas on the structure of 
the Hebrew word. They are possibly the most significant, if not the 
ultimate, contribution to the understanding of the Hebrew language in 
the last 1000 years. If you miss them it will be your own  great loss.” 
[https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2008-June/035964.html]


Regards,
David Kummerow.