1. It is not clear to me how you are "looking at the meanings in
Biblical Hebrew".
2. I have never heard about "indicator of etymology".
3. It is not clear to me what "phases" are.
4. "not the same" is dependent on the norm for sameness.
5. Hebrew is not English.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Mar 1, 2011, at 11:30 AM, K Randolph wrote:
Isaac:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Isaac Fried <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
You are avoiding the issue. I am looking at the meanings in
Biblical Hebrew, and finding no connection at all, therefore no
indication of common etymology. For good, linguistic reasons,
similarity in form alone is not recognized as an indicator of
etymology. It is on that basis that your claim is invalid.
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.
There are norms for sameness, and those norms, at least from
discussions on this list, indicate that there are three, if not
four, phases that Hebrew went through as it changed from Biblical
to modern Hebrews. Those changes include that the grammar of
Biblical Hebrew is not the same as the grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew
which is not the same as the grammar of modern Hebrew. There are
other changes as well. That you do not acknowledge these differences …
(Similar differences are recognized for English, from Anglo-Saxon
(Beowulf) to Middle English (Chaucer) to Elizabethan English
(Shakespeare, KJV) to modern English. Or is it your claim that a
native speaker of modern English should have no problems reading
Chaucer?)
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
