Hi Isaac,
I think you need to explain what you mean by "function" and "meaning"
below, specifically: "I don't dispute the function of -UT. Our
disagreement is on its meaning."
If you agree on the function of the morpheme -ut, it would seem to me
that your disagreement then is not so much over meaning but on the
historical make-up of the form, i.e. that it is a fusion and
grammaticalisation from two (!) independent personal pronouns. However,
given the function of the morpheme, this proposal is most unlikely
(actually, I would go as far as to say impossible). It is also
unsubstantiated, and is as "superficial" as your treatment of the
English data, which I will not go into.
Regards,
David Kummerow.
George,
I am really, really sorry that you were offended by my choice of
words. I surely had no intention, be it the slightest, of
caricaturing your statement, except of recasting it into my own words
for the sake of my own apprehension.
For the record, I don't dispute the function of -UT. Our disagreement
is on its meaning. It is still my understanding that you are saying -
UT is inherently meaningless [except for it being an abstract
grammatical marker], while I contend it is a personal pronoun, or a
string thereof.
I would be greatly reluctant to comment on the formation of English
words, but it superficially appears to me that the suffix -ism is the
compound [via Latin etc., etc.] of the substantives is-am or is-in. I
am not sure what is the meaning of the suffix -tion, but in any
event, the consensus is that it is meaningless as a stand-alone.
I am also surprised and saddened by your qualification of my sincere
effort, be it extra consensual, to explain my ideas about the Hebrew
language as "condescending rhetoric".
Isaac Fried, Boston University
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.