Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Jason,

I am sorry, but you should leave "the rest of us" out.
As I said before, the difference between the PATAX and the QAMAC is  
not clear to me and I therefore forbear any explanation based on  
their supposed difference.
I agree that under certain circumstances HE- is more convenient than  
HA-.
I agree with the observation of "Brak" that the complete removal of  
the dgeshim from the Hebrew text will not affect its meaning. I have  
not seen yet a counterexample to this.
The text is surely sacred but the elusive early NAQDANIM were  
possibly not even rabbinical Jews.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 24, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Jason Hare wrote:

> If you think so (and you're wrong), how do you explain the difference
> between prefixed heh with patach and the same with kamats or segol?
> The difference between your approach and that everyone else in the
> world who deals with these things is that we attempt to explain what
> we find in the text, while you attempt to explain the text based on
> your pre-invented schemes. I guess that's why you don't feel the need
> to explain the difference in forms. In your system, it doesn't matter
> what's found in the text; it only matters what mystical meaning exists
> behind the consonants. Sorry, but the rest of us come from a very
> different perspective -- one that actually seeks to successfully
> explain the accidents of the language as it is found in the sacred
> text.
>
> Jason Hare
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> > Jason,
> > I am sorry, but your "vocalic lengthening" is in my opinion a  
> > figment of
> > your imagination.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew