On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:58 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Karl wrote: “This whole article fails because it is based on an
> etymological error, there are other possible meanings, even when accepting
> your
> presupposition against all evidence that this is a two letter root. And the
> evidence is that this is not a two letter root.”
>
> Many Biblical Hebrew words have the 2-consonant root RB and include the
> meaning of “to be big; to be great; to be many; to be bigger than three,
> that is, to be four”. These include: RB = “big” or “great” or, as a noun,
> “
> multitude” or “greatness”; RBB = “to become much or many”: note how for
> an archaic 2-consonant root, the later tri-consonantal root often simply
> doubles the second consonant; RBBH = “multitude” or “myriad”; RBH = “to
> grow great”; RBW = “myriad” or “greatness”; )RB( = “four”, as a common
> word, that is, “bigger than three”.
>
So what? What is the evidence that we deal with a two letter root here?
None.
The true root is not RBB, because RB, RBH, RBW, )RB(, etc. have only RB,
> not RBB. And the true root of the common word for “four” is not RB(,
> because
> the number four originally meant “bigger than three”, and was a play on
> RB, meaning “big”.
>
> Ayin when it is part of a word, it is part of the root. It doesn’t get
dropped nor added. So this is a minimum a three letter root.