Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

David,

An argument based on "everyone else" or "anyone else" or "no one  
else" is sheer demagoguery.
I pointed out to you before that "phonemics" is a pseudo-science and  
that you should not waste your time on it, but apparently you are not  
listening to me.

Isaac Fried

On Feb 5, 2009, at 7:40 PM, David Kummerow wrote:

> Isaac,
>
> As always, your postings are full of mumbo-jumbo to everyone else but
> yourself. You use phrases like "it stands to reason" when it is  
> plainly
> anything but reasonable to anyone else.
>
> As I've pointed out in then past, your error relates specifically  
> to not
> understanding phonemics, even though you set out in your enterprise
> thinking you do. Your end conclusions are directly related and  
> traceable
> to this mistake. Statements about pronominal compounding are
> linguistically a joke, and have been proven again and again to be  
> wrong,
> yet you still continue to put forth this view as if it is fact.  
> Simply,
> no one before you has made such radical claims because no one else has
> made such a slip-up with linguistics before. So it "stands to reason"
> why your pseudo-etymological theorising is not being taken  
> seriously by
> anyone else -- and why you couldn't come up with the names of those
> agreeing with you when pressed by George.
>
> My sincerely hope is that you will come to your senses, drop your
> theory, and put this limitless energy for the language which you  
> seem to
> have to more fruitful research. Semantic analysis of lexemes is still
> very much needed, but valuable research of this kind isn't along the
> lines of what you currently promote.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
>
> George,
>
> 1. Your statement to the effect that my theory on the composition of
> the Hebrew root is wrong because it "is not supported by anyone else
> I know" is, I am sorry to say, irrelevant to the issue. Sorry to say,
> but it smacks of psychological warfare.
> 2. I have to reject also your next claim to the effect that it "does
> not seem to appreciate the way Semitic languages work". I am terribly
> sorry, but I refuse to take it for granted that you have the ultimate
> knowledge of "the way Semitic languages work".
> 3. There is nothing inherently contradictory in thinking that the
> Hebrew root is a composition. It stands to reason that the Hebrew tri-
> literal root did not jump into being wholly formed. In fact many
> basic Hebrew words are of a single-consonant root, to wit: )EL ---
> root L, )AB --- root B, )EM --- root M, )AX ---root X, RA( --- root R.
> 4. Plurality is such an important part of reality that it stands to
> reason that the ancients, even the ancient-ancients, had a word for
> it. I think it is AR or RA, and is still present in the Hebrew
> language in compounds. Here is how I analyze the word RABIM. It is
> the composition RA-AB-IM, where RA is for aggregation, AB is for
> bigness, and IM is the personal pronoun HEM, 'they', namely, RABIM =
> aggregated-big-they.
> 5. I am really at a loss to understand what you mean by "Verification
> here does not mean proof".
> 6. I do not see anything inherently wrong with what you call "your
> reasoning is entirely circular." You study the Hebrew language very
> carefully, You form in you mind a theory about its inherent
> structure, and then you use your theory to study it still further.
> Isn't this what a scientific theory is all about?
> 7. Now specifically to MIDBAR, there is no doubt in my mind that it
> is a variant of MICBAR, 'accumulation'. To what accumulation the
> ancients referred here is not revealed to us. I see that BDB,
> following Gesenius, thinks it is "a tract of land used for pasturage
> of flocks and herds", namely it is a MICBAR of sheep. How come there
> is a MIDBAR, 'wilderness', and a MIDBAR, 'mouth', he does not explain
> to us (I also think it is not 'mouth', but let this be).
> So following through on my thinking that MIDBAR = MICBAR I am saying
> it is not in reference to sheep and goats. Hebrew does not call river
> the abode of fishes, nor lake the abode of ducks, nor mountain the
> abode of eagles. So what else is accumulated there? I say sand, dirt
> and stones, in agreement with the Mishnaic ZIBURIT, 'useless land'.
>
> Isaac Fried
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew