Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

1. As I understand it what you are saying is this: The "prefix" TA-  
is merely a meaningless bark, a kind of an abrupt rap one may use to  
playfully scare a child. The purpose of this pre-articulated TA-, you  
are saying, is to "turn" the root (or cluster of radical letters) KL,  
followed the meaningless brief shriek IYT, into an "abstract" noun.  
It is a perfect explanation, except that I don't believe that the  
Hebrew language is made up of barks and shrieks.

2. It appears to me that the root is antecedent to the meaning of the  
word.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Nov 5, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 06:06:42 -0500, Isaac Fried wrote
> > 1. So, explain to me, please, what is this TA- of TAKLIYT, that even
> >  you agree is not radical. Saying that it is a "prefix" means
> > nothing beyond  restating that it is not radical, and hangs at the
> > beginning of the word.
>
> saying that it is "atah" does not provide any info either, since  
> obviously the
> info in "atah" (second person, singular) has nothing to do with the  
> noun,
> which is typically third person and often plural.
>
> so, the question is what do you mean by "explain". grammar explains  
> things by
> their functionality. hence, a prefix which turns a verb into an  
> abstract noun
> is a perfect explanation for the initial T:
>
>    KLH (v) --> T-KL-IT
>
> where the prefix T- turns it into a noun and the final suffix  
> indicates
> feminine singular. now, beyond functionality, if you ask me what  
> was the
> process which led to choosing T- of all the other possibilities, i  
> will say
> that "atah" will not be my first candidate: i would posit first the  
> dative
> preposition "et", for being normally attached to nouns.
> but i admit that speculation at this level is a bit
> futile. maybe comparative semitics can help, but you do not accept  
> it either.
>
> > 2. So explain to me, please, how do you come to the conclusion  
> > that the
> > root of TAKLIYT is כלה KLH.
>
> look at the example from Neh. the meaning there is, undoubtedly,  
> the END of
> (i.e. a point in space where a certain construction terminates).  
> this must
> be from KLH=terminate. i will not discuss the other examples, i  
> concede they
> can be understood in more than one way. in the example discussed  
> (job 15)
> KLH (exhaustion) as i expalin sounds to me more logical than KLL  
> (contain).
> but again, the game of associations is just a game and not all  
> minds see the
> same association.
>
> > 3. I have not the slightest interest in Chomsky (the son.)
>
> i imagined.
>
> nir cohen