Biblical Hebrew Forum

[TedBro AT aol.com]

A good example of why some medieval grammarians argued that Hebrew roots  
were basically bi-literal instead of tri-literal.
 
-Ted Brownstein
 
 
In a message dated 1/17/2012 9:53:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
if AT math.bu.edu writes:

The  shorter form $D is a variant of

DD, ZD, YD, SD CD, $D, TD

דד,  זד, יד, סד, צד, שד, תד

>From DD we have:
DAD, 'breast, teat, bulge,  nipple', DADAH, 'move unsteadily and  
waveringly, shake and  tilt
from side to side' (compare: תעתע, צעצע, טאטא, זעזע,  
שעשע),  DUDA, 'sprout' (compare the
modern תות TUT), DUD, 'pot, teat-like basket',  DOD, 'side relation,  
consort, partner, YDIYD'.

>From ZD we  have:
ZED (also $ED), 'deviant, devious', ZAD-ON, 'intention,   
premeditation, purpose'.

>From YD we have:
YAD, 'hand, a  thrusting outward bodily limb, jutting out appendage,   
extremity'.

>From SD we have:
SAD, 'log', SOD, SID, bundle,  collection, accumulation'.

>From CD we have:
CAD, 'side, extension,  accumulation '.

>From $D we have:
$AD,'teat', $OD, 'collection,  accumulation'

>From TD we have:
YATED, 'peg, nail'.

Isaac  Fried, Boston University