David,
Yes, but the whole thing is useless or trivial or sheer waste of time. Linguistics requires that the 'linguistic unit' under consideration be first ascertained to be meaningful (and minimal!) to qualify for morpheme status, but it does not tell us how to achieve this knowledge. Once I know the meaning of a certain 'linguistic unit' I don't need linguistics to tell me it is a morpheme. It is what it means to be. This is tautology at its best.
My ideas about the structure of the Hebrew word merit careful consideration, rather than derision. It is pity, but instead of concentrating on Hebrew we waste our time on the barren word inventions and interplays of Indo-European linguistics.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.