Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>]

The purpose of asking a question is to get the answer you want.
If I ask a question about cars, I want an answer about cars...... not 
about tea leaves.
No matter how great and complex the answer about tea leaves is - I don't 
what that answer has it doesn't apply to my question. So it would only 
make sense for me to reject the tea leaves answers to my car question.
Otherwise - what's the point?? lol

B"H
John Steven

David Kummerow wrote:
> I'm sorry for trying to help you. I saw no problem with trying to treat 
> your question in a linguistically accurate and appropriate manner. I'm 
> sorry to see that you don't accept such ideals. I guess if you want your 
> questions answered in exactly the way you want, then answer them in a 
> fashion you accept with the answers you expect.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
>
>   
> > David Kummerow wrote:
> >     
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > Well, you pick an example where the "base" parts are the same. 
> > > Dividing between a "base" morpheme and a "prefix" morpheme to answer 
> > > you question is entirely arbitrary, linguistically speaking. In any 
> > > case, [ha$omer] differs from [ha$$omer] with respect to the dagesh. 
> > > The prefixed morphemes are /ha/ and /haC/ (more correctly /ha?/, where 
> > > ? stands for mora). Again I assert that in this morpheme, removal of 
> > > the dagesh changes the morpheme, and hence its semantics, entirely. 
> > > The principle, therefore, that in BH the dagesh is phonemic -- and 
> > > hence meaningful -- is established. Whether a linguistic side effect 
> > > of this is that some verbal or nominal morphology solely differs with 
> > > respect to this morpheme is entirely secondary -- meaning that the 
> > > answer to your question regarding "bases", whether affirmative or 
> > > negative, does not really matter with respect to the phonemic status 
> > > of dagesh. By removing dagesh from /haC/, you remove the 
> > > distinguishing phoneme from the morpheme, hence there is significant 
> > > meaning loss in doing so.
> > >   
> > >       
> > The base parts are not the same graphically - as one has a dagesh, the 
> > other doesn't.
> > My diving the word is not arbitrary! The morpheme breaks I gave are not 
> > of my invention!
> > My question is about the "base" - weather you approve of it or not. So 
> > please don't tell me what questions to ask.
> >
> > So my question is what it is: Does the addition of a dagesh(es) into the 
> > "base" of the word change the meaning the of "base" of the word?
> >
> >
> >     
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>