1. Meaning is not a point-wise, but rather an an extensive quality
and therefore comparison of meanings needs to be done in the original
Hebrew, not on its purported translation.
2. It is my firm opinion that "modern" Hebrew and "biblical" Hebrew
are one and the same language. As long as we don't have a norm for
"sameness" this discussion will be of no avail and of no end. Isn't
English of the last decade the "same" language as of this decade even
though it gained meanwhile some thousand new words? Or are they only
"related"?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:09 AM, K Randolph wrote:
Isaac:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Isaac Fried <[email protected]> wrote:
1. You are confusing the Hebrew etymology of the original with the
English etymology of its purported translation.
Who said anything about the etymology of the English meanings?
The Hebrew meaning of one word, as translated, is to pervert, and
the Hebrew meaning of another is to be stout, yet you claim they
are related. So what is the relationship? How do you get from one
meaning to the other?
2. "Modern" Hebrew and "biblical" Hebrew are one and the same
language.
Shall we start with showing differences in grammar that show they
are two different but related languages? Then add many words that
have different meanings?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
It is commonly recognized in linguistics that similarity in sound,
or even at times the same sound, usually does not reflect
similarity in meaning. In order to show etymology, one must show
how the meanings are related as well. Hence my questions above.
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
