Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Nir:

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. 
<nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:

>  karl,
>
> i was not getting into etymology at all,
>

Etymology is important and its recognition useful, as long as it is
constrained by recognized linguistic principles and is handled very
carefully.

A difficulty in Biblical Hebrew is that there are derivatives that have
homographs could come from more than one root (no evidence that they were
originally pronounced the same). A proper understanding of the rules of
derivation helps in discussions like this. Also a bit of humility in
recognizing that some words may not have roots from which they are derived,
even though their forms may lead some people to speculate that they are
derived from known roots.


> i was just trying to understand the point in isaac' question, which still
> escapes me. some of the associations he makes with BH are clearly much more
> far-fetched than the one i was making (independent of its veracity). yet he
> was alarmed by this one.
>

I don’t attempt to understand his theory, as it is based on idiosyncratic
speculation based on a self-admitted ignorance of linguistics. It could be
that he has trouble with this question because it goes against his theory.
Maybe he has never noticed the mucus trail left behind by slugs and snails
which, when dried, can shimmer in sunlight. Like you, I don’t understand his
objection to this based on his past practices.

>
> nir cohen
>
> Karl W. Randolph.