Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
To: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
Cc: "Pere Porta" <pporta7 AT gmail.com>; "Hebrew List" 
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Vav Nun Suffix



1. It is not clear to me what you mean by "actual word". The Hebrew
word = root +identity markers (personal pronouns).
***
Talmud is a real word,
now we can dismantle it as being composed of:

- ta
- root l_m_d
- vowel scheme 0_u

A.
***


2. the root of AB, 'father', is B ( עב ), 'big'. It is also the root
of ABEH ( עבה ), 'thick', BUAH ( בועה, אבעבועה ),
'bubble, inflation', and appears in BA-AL ( בעל ), 'master',
together with the other uni-consonantal root L ( על ), 'elevation'.
***
Father is  אב with aleph, neither the form nor the meaning is that of ( 
עב ), 'big'.
The rest is not better.
A.
**


3. I am not worried of falling into the "trap of etymological furor".
If you think carefully about what I am saying you will also come to
he conclusion that it can not be otherwise.
***
Well,
§2. indeed indicates that you are head-deep in etymological furor, maybe 
even etymological hybris.
A.
***


4. Identity markers are personal pronouns or universal (temporary)
names.
***
Well
we are not making any progress
as you define your idiosyncratic framework with other idiosyncratic words.
A.
***


5. The TA of TALMUD, 'learning', (from the root LMD), is the personal
pronoun ATAH (אתה ), while the internal U is the personal pronoun
HU ( הוא ), both referring to the thing itself.
***
How do you explain that a free form like (אתה ) "you" can become a bound 
form in ta-lmud, not to speak about the semantic problems?

I don't understand how the free forms atah and hu could fuse with an 
unutterable vowelless root l_m_d to spontaneously and nicely generate 
talmud.

A.
***



Recall that I said
that the attached (or inserted) personal pronouns are not the
detached ones.
***
Yes,
and that's clearly a major problem for your ad-hoc "theory".
A.
***


Similarly, we have NICAB ( ניצב ), 'perpendicular',
with an initial NI ( אני ), and MISHOR ( מישור ), 'plane',
with an initial MI ( מי ).
***
And do C_B and Sh_r exist with those meanings?

Arnaud Fournet