Biblical Hebrew Forum

[berlant AT advanced-studies.org]

On March 17,2010, George Athas wrote"

>It comes down to the acceptance of those postulates. However, they 
can't really be accepted (see Yitzhak's response). So, you can't 
really build a plausible theory on unacceptable assumptions.

What do you find unacceptable about the postulate that 
tri-consonantal roots were derived from bi-consontantal roots, and 
what is the alternative? That the former were derived full-blown ex 
nihilo, like Athena from the head of Zeus?

And although the postulate that Tet was a reflex of Tav may not be 
acceptable, the postulate that Tet and Tav were often confused within 
and between languages should be acceptable?

However, even if the latter postulate isn't acceptable, the identity 
Pe-Tet/open = Pe-Tav/open is still, imo, sufficient grounds for 
believing that the roots are variants.

Regards,

Steve Berlant