From: "Isaac Fried" <[email protected]>
1. I think that what you mean by "vocabulary" is the root stock of the
Hebrew language. I believe that the multi-consonantal Hebrew root is a
merger of uni-consonantal roots.
***
No the stock of roots is not the same as the vocabulary which is made up of
actual words (or maybe we can also include stems).
It's always fairly difficult to know what the speakers consider a "root".
The hyper consonantic dismantling of Semitic languages is somewhat
artificial.
We can reconstruct words with their vowels, not just consonant roots.
Father is *)ab not just root *)b, a "root" that does not make much sense in
fact.
I suppose you mean "addition" of uni-consonantal roots rather than fusion.
I don't think you can build a reasonable case for that theory.
You will probably fall in the trap of "etymological furor".
A.
***
2. I don't "decree" anything, I merely express my belief that the I and U
(also E and O) sounds in the Hebrew word are identity markers. The
ancient Hebrews did not waste the I and U sounds just for twitting and
tutting like birds.
***
What does "identity markers" mean?
A.
****
3. The ancient Hebrews did not construct their language by means of
"prefixes", "infixes" and "suffixes".
***
What is the t- of talmud then?
A.
***
4. The Hebrew language is "primitive" in the sense that in it word = root
+ identity markers. Nothing can be simpler, or more "primitive", than
that.
***
Actually word = stem (and no consonantal root) is even more simple.
Most languages apply that.
In my opinion the Semitic resort to vocalic schemes in verbs is certainly
not primitive.
It's a late and localized innovation that has not happened in other
languages.
Arnaud Fournet
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
