Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

1. I have never said that T and Q are interchangeable. Never! In  
fact, I don't use at all the terminology of interchangeable letters.  
What I have said is that the letters ג ה ח כ ק G H (not silent H)  
X K Q are equivalent, and that this is universally true, without fail.
Then I said that this is how I understand that פיסח רגליים  
= פישק רגליים PISEAX RAGLAYIM = PISEQ RAGLAYIM, and that  
פיסגה = פישקה PISGAH = PISQAH.

2. Still, there is, indeed, this fact worthy of notice that that the  
roots (or acts) PLX, PCX, PQX, PTX are all essentially, or basically  
(you have the right to question "essentially" or "basically"), the same.

3. I am not a big fan of the "come from" theories, Hebrew "came" from  
the depth of our forefather's soul.

4. I have never said that "the letters ( and Q are interchangeable",  
nor that "the letters R and X are interchangeable". Never!

5. The Aramaic ארקא ARQA (Jer. 10:11) corresponds to our קרקע  
QARQA.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

> isaac,
>
> your system is, undoubtedly, of considerable esthetic value and,
> i would venture to say, probably correct in many points. i would
> also venture to say, wrong in many other points. why?
>
> the point is that you say A=B when, in effect, A=B holds in some  
> contexts
> and not in others. but you use A=B when it suits you, i.e. when the
> ETYMOLOGY is in favor, and ignore A=B in others, i.e. when the  
> ETYMOLOGY
> is against.
>
> example: you say: "T and Q are interchangeable". well, maybe in PTX vs
> PQX they are. but in (TR vs (QR, PTR vs PQR, RTM vs RQM, ShTL
> vs ShQL, QNH vs TNH, QR vs TR, QM vs TM, PQQ vs PTQ etc etc, they
> seem not to be. so, in these examples you very
> conveniently prefer to "forget" that T and Q are interchangeable.
>
> using a linguistic law only when it suits your conclusion is not very
> interesting, because it is a law without objective verification.
>
> in addition, to convince us, you will have to explain in the "positive
> hits" and also explain out the "negative hits".
>
> granted, your "self evident explanation" is the most probable, but  
> did it
> really happen this way? say, maybe PTX and PQX come from
> two COMPLETELY different sources (say, for jim's sake, canaanite and
> hurrian) and their similarity is an accident.
>
> consider also the root P(R, which is also roughly "open". i could  
> similarly
> say that PQX is related to P(R since "the letters ( and Q are  
> interchangeable"
> and "the letters R and X are interchangeable".
> i could even bring the aramaic dual example )RQH=)R(H ( hebrew  
> EREC ) as
> evidence for the first "law" and BRR=BXR, BWR=PX for the second. i  
> would be
> inventing a rule just as valid as yours and, i am afraid, just as  
> shaky.
>
> so, the linguists do not hurry as much as you do in drawing hasty
> conclusions and prefer to wait for a more solid confirmations from
> ancient texts, including the examination of other languages spoken
> in the region, which you dismiss as unnecessary.
>
> nir cohen
>
> ---------------------------
>
> isaac wrote:
>
> > > What I mean by self evident is that all we need for verification is
> to open the Hebrew Bible and look for it.
>
> In Gen. 3:7 PAQAX is used to the parting of the eyelids to expose the
> pupil (indeed, in the extended sense of understanding what one sees),
> while in 1Ki 8:29 the verb PATAX is used for it. In Dt. 15:8 PATAX is
> used for the parting of the fingers of the hand.
>
> Opening the eyes is such a common act that Hebrew has a special verb
> for it. Hebrew has also this special verb NAGAN, 'to play a musical
> instrumet', absent in English!
>
> All we have in Biblical Hebrew is what we see written, and hence a
> phonetic analysis of its verbs is irrelevant, methinks.
>
> I believe that the only way to penetrate the internal logic of the
> Hebrew language is via the realization that some of its letters are
> mere variants, say ג ח כ ק G X K Q. There is no doubt in my mind,
> for instance, that PISEX RAGLAYIM  is PISEQ RAGLAYIM, 'a spreader, or
> parter, of (limp) legs'. Here [Y] is a PISEX RAGLAYIM standing on his
> head.
>
> What is this RO$ HA-PISG-AH of Nu. 23:14? Of course, it is ראש
> הפשקה RO$ HA-PISQ-AH, the point where the mountain parts its
> slopes. The place is also called שדה צופים SDE COPIYM (COPEH
> is, I believe, a COBEH, 'erect'), a vantage point, an observatory.
> This is how ancient Hebrews understood PISGAH, and this is how I
> understand it.
>
> Today we use the word פסיג PSIYG for the embryonic parting of the
> leaves in a sprouting seed. Here is how it looks like [Y].
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew