isaac, your system is, undoubtedly, of considerable esthetic value and, i would venture to say, probably correct in many points. i would also venture to say, wrong in many other points. why?
the point is that you say A=B when, in effect, A=B holds in some contexts and not in others. but you use A=B when it suits you, i.e. when the ETYMOLOGY is in favor, and ignore A=B in others, i.e. when the ETYMOLOGY is against. example: you say: "T and Q are interchangeable". well, maybe in PTX vs PQX they are. but in (TR vs (QR, PTR vs PQR, RTM vs RQM, ShTL vs ShQL, QNH vs TNH, QR vs TR, QM vs TM, PQQ vs PTQ etc etc, they seem not to be. so, in these examples you very conveniently prefer to "forget" that T and Q are interchangeable. using a linguistic law only when it suits your conclusion is not very interesting, because it is a law without objective verification. in addition, to convince us, you will have to explain in the "positive hits" and also explain out the "negative hits". granted, your "self evident explanation" is the most probable, but did it really happen this way? say, maybe PTX and PQX come from two COMPLETELY different sources (say, for jim's sake, canaanite and hurrian) and their similarity is an accident. consider also the root P(R, which is also roughly "open". i could similarly say that PQX is related to P(R since "the letters ( and Q are interchangeable" and "the letters R and X are interchangeable". i could even bring the aramaic dual example )RQH=)R(H ( hebrew EREC ) as evidence for the first "law" and BRR=BXR, BWR=PX for the second. i would be inventing a rule just as valid as yours and, i am afraid, just as shaky. so, the linguists do not hurry as much as you do in drawing hasty conclusions and prefer to wait for a more solid confirmations from ancient texts, including the examination of other languages spoken in the region, which you dismiss as unnecessary. nir cohen --------------------------- isaac wrote: >> What I mean by self evident is that all we need for verification is to open the Hebrew Bible and look for it. In Gen. 3:7 PAQAX is used to the parting of the eyelids to expose the pupil (indeed, in the extended sense of understanding what one sees), while in 1Ki 8:29 the verb PATAX is used for it. In Dt. 15:8 PATAX is used for the parting of the fingers of the hand. Opening the eyes is such a common act that Hebrew has a special verb for it. Hebrew has also this special verb NAGAN, 'to play a musical instrumet', absent in English! All we have in Biblical Hebrew is what we see written, and hence a phonetic analysis of its verbs is irrelevant, methinks. I believe that the only way to penetrate the internal logic of the Hebrew language is via the realization that some of its letters are mere variants, say ג ח כ ק G X K Q. There is no doubt in my mind, for instance, that PISEX RAGLAYIM is PISEQ RAGLAYIM, 'a spreader, or parter, of (limp) legs'. Here [Y] is a PISEX RAGLAYIM standing on his head. What is this RO$ HA-PISG-AH of Nu. 23:14? Of course, it is ראש הפשקה RO$ HA-PISQ-AH, the point where the mountain parts its slopes. The place is also called שדה צופים SDE COPIYM (COPEH is, I believe, a COBEH, 'erect'), a vantage point, an observatory. This is how ancient Hebrews understood PISGAH, and this is how I understand it. Today we use the word פסיג PSIYG for the embryonic parting of the leaves in a sprouting seed. Here is how it looks like [Y]. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
