Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Isaac:

Your comments are most interesting.

If you are correct, the lengthy hebrew verb charts; and the related,
differentiation between yiqtol and qatal forms on the basis of tense and
aspect .... all of that would become but illusion. The average 500 b.c., or
500 a.d., consumer of this language would understand neither the current
hebrew verb charts; or any separation of "yiqtol" and "qatal" forms into
different tenses or aspects.

The personal pronouns attached as suffix and prefix to hebrew verbs,
represent just that ... and no more ...; contractions from larger words?
Tense and aspect need to be inferred, if at all, from context of other and
surrounding words and verses.

I cannot imagine mainstream educators, book sellers and academics in general
... meeting and greeting your opinions here.

But then again, the masoretic text verb usage doesn't appear to fit within
the nice, well defined, categories of yiqtol and qatal for tense and aspect
differentiation.

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5564_5860.pdf

I am also interested in your description of the single root letter ב (bet)
as having a base meaning of "to be" or "happen?" Is that correct? If so, how
do you arrive at that conclusion for this root.

I appreciate your help.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:

> The Hebrew word (sans attached prepositions) consists of a root+personal
> pronouns (or identity markers, which are universal temporary names used to
> identify the actors or things referred to). In the word A-XEL, the letter A
> is, in my opinion, a remnant of ANIY, identifying the speaker as the
> perpetrator of the act XEL. In the word W-XAL-U the last U is in my opinion
> a truncated HU), identifying the receivers (HA-AM-IYM) of the act XAL. The
> preposition W is in my opinion a variant of the root B or BA, 'to be, to
> happen'.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>
>
>