On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Ishinan <ishinan AT comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Previously [JIM STINEHART] wrote:
>
> " To my assertion that "Seir" literally means "hairy", and hence "
> well-wooded", you responded: "No, it does not. That is a fairy tale that
> you made up."
>
Sorry, this quote is from me, not George Athas. His responses are a lot more
restrained than mine.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [GEORGE ATHAS] - Where do you possibly see ???? meaning 'forest'? You
> simply
> have not nailed this down. There is a big difference between 'hair' and
> 'wooded forest'. Until you can produce a firm linguistic connection there,
> you are either speculating at best, or just making it up. Either way,
> that's
> NOT GOOD METHOD! If you were doing a research degree, you'd be panned by
> your supervisor for this and sent back to do some basic linguistics.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
It sounds like George Athas criticizes BDB as using poor method.
>
> … I have to express my disagreement with your
> assessment of Jim's etymology of ????
>
Are you using a mail server that won’t handle UTF-8? Google mail was
designed to handle UTF-8, yet your message comes in with multiple question
marks.
>
> The accusations leveled at Jim on THIS particular point, in my opinion, do
> not hold water. I personally checked his assertion and this is what I
> found.
>
> Based on Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon p. 973,…
>
This is what is contested as being legitimate. Just because a word in one
language has a certain meaning, does it necessarily follow that another
language use the same word in exactly the same way? The answer is clearly
“no”.
>
> However, in his assertion, Jim made two minute mistakes. First, he
> neglected to give the page # of the entry in the BDB.