Isaac, if sound U refers to HW), he...... how do you explain, within your theory, that SGRW means -as you write yourself- "they locked" and not "he locked"?
Same queston about XANU, they encamped: why not "he encamped"? Pere Porta (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) 2011/4/21 Isaac Fried <[email protected]> > We need only recall the fundamental statement of Hebrew grammar: > > > A Hebrew word (sans attached prepositions) consists of a root plus personal > pronouns. > > > A personal pronoun (PP) כינוי גוף is a temporary universal name given to a > "thing", or object, in order to identify it, in other words, a PP is an > identity marker. > > The PP may come before the first, after the last, or in-between the radical > letters. For "infixes" the Hebrew language uses as identity markers the > sound I (in my opinion a contracted HI היא ), the sound U (in my opinion a > contracted HU הוא ), and also E and O, with no gender implied. In order not > to confuse the root no consonant is allowed (with rare exceptions) between > the radical letters. > > At the root ends the identifiers may contain N (as in ANI), M (as in HEM), > T (as in AT), H (as in HEN), and K (as in ANOKIY). > > U-T is the combined HU-AT. > > For example: > > SUGAR = S-HU-GAR with the internal HU referring to the thing used for > locking. > > SAGUR = SAG-HU-R with the internal HU referring to the locked thing. > > SAGRU = GAGR-HU, 'they locked'. > > HUSGAR = HU-SGAR, 'he was turned in', HUSGRU = HU-SGR-HU, they were turned > in'. > > KAP, 'palm of the hand, spoon', KAP-IY, 'my spoon', KAP-IY-T, 'a little > spoon, an effeminate spoon'. > > XALAB, 'milk', XALB-U, 'they milked', XALAB-IY, 'my milk', or 'milky' (M.), > XALAB-IY-T, 'milky' (F.). > > XAN-U, 'they parked, they encamped', XAN-U-T, 'store'. > > MELEK, 'king', MALK-U, 'they ruled', MALK-U-T, 'kingship, kingdom', > MALK-U-T-IY, 'regal' (M.), MALK-U-T-IY-T, 'regal' (F.). > > > etc., etc., etc.. > > > Isaac Fried, Boston University > > > On Apr 20, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Pere Porta wrote: > > Dear b-hebrew listers, > > I would like to propose a debate on nouns in -WT in the Bible. And so, > DMWT, > image (Is 40:18) and similar. > I think there are three kinds of such nouns: > > 1. Those that derive from bases lamed-heh (or lamed-yod if you prefer): > DMWT, image; GLWT, exile (Is 20:4)... These substitute the heh of the base > by -WT > 2. Those that are produced by inserting a W between the last two root > consonants, the last of which is T. And so, SHERWT, service, built on the > basic SHERET, to serve (Dt 18:7) > 3. Those that simply add -WT to the three consonants of the base: SKLWT, > stupidity (Ec 10:13), of the basic SEKEL, stupidity (Ec 10:6); MLKWT, > royalty (1Ch 29:25), of the basic MELEK, king. > > Now, nouns in 1. are distributed in two types: > --those that take shewa in their first root consonant: D:MWT > --those that take qamats in their first root consonant: GFLWT > > Am I right? > Are there some other kinds of nouns in -WT? > > Friendly, > > -- > Pere Porta > (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > > -- Pere Porta _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
