Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] PTR

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: berlant AT advanced-studies.org
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] PTR
  • Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:05:26 -0400


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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page