Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

1. Meaning is not a point-wise, but rather an an extensive quality  
and therefore comparison of meanings needs to be done in the original  
Hebrew, not on its purported translation.
2. It is my firm opinion that "modern" Hebrew and "biblical" Hebrew  
are one and the same language. As long as we don't have a norm for  
"sameness" this discussion will be of no avail and of no end. Isn't  
English of the last decade the "same" language as of this decade even  
though it gained meanwhile some thousand new words? Or are they only  
"related"?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:09 AM, K Randolph wrote:

> Isaac:
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> 1. You are confusing the Hebrew etymology of the original with the  
> English etymology of its purported translation.
>
> Who said anything about the etymology of the English meanings?
>
> The Hebrew meaning of one word, as translated, is to pervert, and  
> the Hebrew meaning of another is to be stout, yet you claim they  
> are related. So what is the relationship? How do you get from one  
> meaning to the other?
>
> 2. "Modern" Hebrew and "biblical" Hebrew are one and the same  
> language.
>
> Shall we start with showing differences in grammar that show they  
> are two different but related languages? Then add many words that  
> have different meanings?
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> It is commonly recognized in linguistics that similarity in sound,  
> or even at times the same sound, usually does not reflect  
> similarity in meaning. In order to show etymology, one must show  
> how the meanings are related as well. Hence my questions above.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.