Karl,
I am afraid you commit a grave and fundamental error in mixing up the root
[SHORESH], the act [POAL], and the noun [SHEM]. The root is a material
state; there is nothing else it can be. It becomes an act in the presence of
actors who cause a body to assume the state indicated by the root. A noun
refers to a body having the properties indicated by the root.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jun 19, 2007, at 11:21 AM, K Randolph wrote:
Isaac:
I am merely a lexicographer, not a philosopher nor theologian,
therefore I will not enter into a philosophic argument whether or not
"...and there can not be, a Hebrew root of the meaning "to be
unknown"". Rather, in using a concordance to examine its uses in
Tanakh, and comparing it to synonyms and contrasting to antonyms, as
well as analyzing noun and other derivatives from the same root, "to
be(come) unknown" is the closest equivalence in modern English.
Secondly, in analyzing Biblical Hebrew usages, your claim "The hebrew
root indicates a material state." cannot be maintained; even most
nouns refer to actors, not static objects.
Your objections appear to be philosophic, not linguistic, and as such,
I consider this discussion closed.
Karl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.