Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Steve:

Are we dealing with what can actually be observed, or that which is only
theorized?

I have been repeatedly accused of practicing the root fallacy, i.e. saying
that the root predetermines the meaning of the offshoot, because I put
greater emphasis on the connections between the roots and their derivatives
than do most modern lexicographers. However, I recognize only those
connections where there is already a similarity of meaning and form showing
a root-derivative relationship. I don’t speculate on relationships that are
not already visible.

In that regard, I do not speculate on possible roots for nouns, adjectives,
adverbs and other words, when a root is not present in Biblical literature.

Secondly, I take the language as it can be observed. I do not think ‘might
bes’ are valid. In that regard, there are some roots that are two letter
roots, the majority are three letter roots, and a couple are four letter
roots, as used in Biblical Hebrew.

Seeing as your theory does not involve observed etymologies to back it up,
it is mere speculation that can neither be proven nor disproved.

Karl W. Randolph.