Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Isaac:

I appreciate your comments.

Do you look at all of the descendants of lamed; and then all of the
descendants of chet? And then make informed decision about what the two
letters, chet and lamed, mean in isolation?

While perhaps not complex, that seems a fairly large and time consuming
exercise. Each letter enjoys 21 possible combinations with one other letter?
And the permutations grow a lot more for three letter combinations? (not to
mention usages from there).

regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:

> I looked at all the Hebrew roots and their descendant words to verify this.
> Language is a very very simple device and, as it developed spontaneously, it
> must have very very obvious structure.
>
> Isacc Fried, Boston University
>
>  On Jan 29, 2011, at 11:09 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
>
>
> Hello Isaac;
>
> Thanks for your instructive comments.
> It sounds reasonable that one letter roots give rise to two and three
> letter roots.
>
> But how do you arrive at the base meaning of the single letter root? By
> reasoning back from the revealed meaning (via usage) of the descendant two
> and three letter roots?
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
>
>> 1. The two words are of the same root XL, 'pile up'.
>> 2. The Hebrew root refers to a material state. The words derived from it
>> acquire by usage and context their specific meaning.
>> 3. I am of the opinion that all Hebrew roots are a fusion of single
>> consonant roots. This is how the language developed. The letter L ,thus,
>> represents elevation, and its appearance in a root always indicates this.
>> For example: EL, 'a lofty being', AL-EH, 'leaf', LUL, 'ladder', ALILAH,
>> 'tall story, plot, libel', UL, 'grownup', and so on.
>>
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>
>>
>>
>
>