Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Isaac:

Thanks for your comments.

Perhaps a further example, will illustrate my lack of understanding of your
point.

In genesis 6:13, we have participle בא vocalized as "bah."

In deuteronomy 1:28, we have participle (plus prefixed conjunction) ורם
vocalized as "vah-ram."

Are you saying, that "vah-ram" should properly be vocalized "bah-ram?" Or
that that the original pronunciation of "vah-ram" was "bah-ram?"

Because "bah" on one hand; and "vah" or "wah" on
the other, sound significantly different to me.
regards,

fred burlingame
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>