Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Voila! hereby is a good and clear disputation to decisively prove  
that Isaac Fried is wrong:

"would not refer to the meaning of the verb as it is used"

"imaginative etymology"

"how the form developed into Hebrew"

"play a game"

"real, communicative Hebrew"

"how abstractly he can describe any word or root"

"checked for consistency, applicability"

"how it lines up or doesn't line up"

"other data in the history of the Semitic languages"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 6, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Randall Buth wrote:

> This explanation referring to 'h' as a subject pronoun and 'i' as
> an object pronoun would not refer to the meaning of the verb as
> it is used, but to an imaginative etymology of how the form
> developed into Hebrew. My impression (for what it is worth
> and it may be quite offbase) is that Isaac loves to play a
> game with real, communicative Hebrew, and to see how abstractly
> he can describe any word or root. While interesting, it is not
> usually checked for consistency, applicability, or how it lines
> up or doesn't line up with other data in the history of the
> Semitic languages.