Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Paul:

You could be right. I am the expert not, in these matters.

But that is my understanding.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

>  That is **a** theory that exists.  Whether it “prevails” is highly
> questionable.  I’m not even sure that Isaac would raise its general
> popularity to that level.
>
>
>
> Paul Zellmer
>
>
>
> *From:* fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:14 PM
> *To:* Paul Zellmer
> *Cc:* b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> *Subject:* Re: [b-hebrew] language level
>
>
>
> Hello Paul:
>
>
>
> Thanks for your informative comments.
>
>
>
> I understand the following theory prevails at this time in academia, though
> with the usual and customary dissent. The alphabet and its language(s),
> rather than experiencing an event of creation, arose by gradual evolution
> from the hieroglyph and its language(s) over centuries 2000-1000 b.c.
>
>
>
> http://www.bib-arch.org/scholars-study/alphabet.asp
>
>
>
>
> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=6
>
>
>
> Hence:
>
>
>
> a. the one to one correspondence between hieroglyph and word;
>
>
>
> b. gradually moved to single alphabet letter one to one correspondence with
> a word;
>
>
>
> c. and thence, to two alphabet letters correspondence to a single word;
>
>
>
> d. and thence, to three alphabet letters correspondence to a single word.
>
>
>
> The two letter parent root in this instance חל (chet, lamed) birthed 2,
> three letter child roots,
>
>
>
> i. the one by adding י (yod) or ו (waw) between the two consonants;
>
>
>
> ii. the other by repeating ל (lamed).
>
>
>
> And so, the question persists; what is the tie that binds the two child
> roots to the parent? What meaning of the parent is common to the two
> children?
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> fred burlingame
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Fred,
>
> While the parts of the two roots remaining in the forms found in the verse
> are identical, "two letter consonantal root(s)" are basically non-existent
> in Hebrew.  And there are several ways in which trilateral roots reduce to
> biliteral representations.
>
> The traditional roots for these specific occurrences, the ones resulting in
> our current translations, are חלל (the same root as the nominal form תחלה- 
> beginning, first) and
> חיל (from חול).  If, as I personally believe based on the context, these
> identifications are correct, then the answers to your musings would be: 1)
> the author did not grasp at all to choose these words.  They were words
> normally used to express the thoughts expressed in the verse.  That their
> surface representations were similar is merely accidental.  2) the two
> remaining root letters come neither from there being a common root or an
> illusion.  They result from two different phonological processes in the
> language.  3) The two words have different meanings, and their roots have
> different meanings.
>
> If you wish to posit that the two come from a single root, you are welcome
> to do so.  However, the burden then lies on your shoulders to defend what
> that root is (remember--triliteral) and what it means.  To present options
> of alternate roots is an acceptable scholarly exercise, but it is normal to
> demonstrate how the changing the roots also change the meaning of the verse.
>
> Paul Zellmer
>