Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Halhul, Jezreel and Timnah

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] Halhul, Jezreel and Timnah
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:03:41 -0500

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page