Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

BA and WA sound nowadays exactly the same (forget the confusing  
dagesh), but are used alternatively to create a visual (VISUAL!)  
distinction between words that sound the same and have essentially  
the same core meaning. As I said before, no one would think of  
registering (REGISTERING!) his daughter's name as ZIYB-AH זיבה,  
but ZIYW-AH זיוה (which sounds exactly the same) is very fine.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jan 30, 2011, at 2:01 AM, fred burlingame wrote:

> Hello Isaac:
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I appreciate your analysis.
>
> I don't understand however, the visual trick that moves the letter  
> vocalized as "bet" and appearing as ב into the letter vocalized as  
> "waw" and appearing as ו . I suppose that the sounds "BA" and "WA"  
> could be mistaken for one another. I also understand that you refer  
> to this process more precisely as waw becoming a variant of bet.
>
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> The letter B is the root of BA, 'come', which is 'to be' (BA it is  
> not a process but the state of being present). So, WAYIGA$ sounds  
> to me BA)-HIY)-GA$, which is exactly what it is. Writing W for B is  
> just a visual trick to momentarily blind us. The word ZIYB-AH,  
> 'pus' is disgusting, but ZIYW-AH, 'shine, emit electromagnetic  
> pus', is a cute Hebrew girl's name.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Jan 29, 2011, at 11:49 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
>
> > Hello Isaac;
> >
> > That was a clever turn of a phrase.
> >
> > How do you reach the conclusion that the root, single letter B,  
> > means basically "come, be, exist, have substance?" By reasoning  
> > back from the actual usages of the descendant or child, two and  
> > three letter roots?
> >
> > Does your paragraph "2" below imply a past tense for the "qatal"  
> > form, subject to usage exceptions?
> >
> > Very interesting that the ancient hebrew language enjoyed more  
> > flexibility than the modern language. It sounds like the evolution  
> > of languages mirrors the evolution of governments ... more and  
> > more rules.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > fred burlingame
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> > 1. Grammaticalization made the language ever more formal and  
> > rigid, yet, WA-YI-$LAX essentially means (it come to pass that)- 
> > (he)-(send).
> > 2, "qatal' is just short for he-qatal-him, the past being the  
> > "natural" tense for an act.
> > 3. I don't give a hoot for the opinion of "mainstream" educators,  
> > book sellers and academics. They are to me the ox snugly following  
> > the rut.
> > 4. The letter B is the root of BA, 'come, be, exist, have substance'.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University