On one count the amazon.com "reviewer" of my book: "the Analytic and
Synthetic Etymology of the Hebrew Language" is profoundly wrong (of course I
am not going to argue with him about what is "probable" and what is
"improbable"), and I want to point this out here for the sake of our
readers. It never occurred to me to suggest that "...every Hebrew word can
be analyzed..." It is of course not 'word' but 'root'. This commentator, an
apparent expert on the "principles of historical linguistics", is confusing
here word and root.
In fact, the extension of נתיב is at once upward, widthwise,I picked this one because it appeared that you were referring to the shape
and lengthwise.
The Hebrew word (noun as well as verb) is composed of a root interlaced with
pronouns. The inserted pronouns (the "infixes") are the sounds U and I,
pronounced in Hebrew oo and ee, and their latter variants O and E. Thus, the
word נתיב=נת+היא+ב, has an inserted pronoun I, for which I wrote the Hebrew
היא, referring to the object itself.
The sound A in nAtIv is a mere vocal
gap between the consonants. However, in the verbal form ניתבתי=נ+היא+תב+אתי
both היא and אתי mark the actor performing the act expressed by the root
נתב.
In their separate form the Hebrew pronouns are composed of the original
universal pronouns U, O, I, E, augmented by existence markers. For instance:
אני=אן+היא, or ani=an+I,
and אנוכי=אן+הוא+אך+היא, or anoxi=an+O+x+I. In the
same way אנו=אן+הוא, or anu=an+U, and אנחנו=אן+אך+אן+הוא, or
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.