הִמּוֹל

[Jason Hare]

The internal היא is ignored in most forms for fluency.

No. The infix simply DOES NOT MEAN היא. If anything means היא, it would be the ה at the end of the feminine form השמידה—not because ה = היא but because Hebrew normally uses ה or ת for feminine verbal suffixes.

[ducky]

Hi Jason, Nice to meet you.

As for the rest of the subject, I let you two talk with each other.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason Hare writes
No. The infix simply DOES NOT MEAN היא. If anything means היא, it would be the ה at the end of the feminine form השמידה—not because ה = היא but because Hebrew normally uses ה or ת for feminine verbal suffixes.
Yes! since it is declared in BANNER CAPITAL LETTERS it must be "simply" so. And how do we know that it is really "simply" so? simply! because it is SIMPLY SO.

because Hebrew normally uses ה or ת for feminine verbal suffixes.

This is not clear to me. Why and for what should Hebrew use "feminine verbal suffixes"?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jason Hare]

Isaac,

I had to put it in big letters because you apparently miss it when it isn't so. You are the only person in the world (and there are millions of Hebrew speakers) who espouses this theory of yours. That should tell you something. This was invented in your own mind, but it does not represent how Hebrew really works.

Inflectional languages, like Hebrew, mark verbs for person, number and gender. English doesn't really do this, since "won" can be "I won," "you won," "they won," "she won," "he won," "we won." The verb isn't marked. You know that Hebrew is unlike English. You should be aware that אכל is masculine and אכלה is feminine, that ילכו is masculine and תלכנה is feminine. Hebrew marks verbs to agree with their subjects.

The fact that you like to reject all other languages and the data that comes from them prevents you from getting a wider view of how languages work. People bring up Aramaic and how it behaves, and you act like it isn't relevant to understanding Hebrew. Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Latin all use -a as a feminine marker for adjectives and nouns. Arabic adds heh (ه) to feminine adjectives and many verb forms (like Hebrew). There is so much to be gained from a general view of how languages work, but you prefer to take the position that Hebrew is somehow different from the other languages of the world. It isn't. The same principles exist in Hebrew as exist in every other language known to man.

And no language in the world uses personal pronouns inserted into words to determine patterns. That just isn't the case, and it isn't the case in Hebrew. The onus probandi is upon you to establish such a theory by more than just your feelings and reactions to the language. It must be demonstrated, and you haven't done so... even in a thousand pages.

Jason

[Isaac Fried]

Jason Hare writes

Not every letter in a language has meaning on its own.

Some other people, including myself, think you are wrong (I think only temporarily and for now because I believe you will eventually agree with me because there is no other way to rationally look at Hebrew.) It stands to reason that when the ancient Hebrew coined names for things he formed the name to reflect the nature of the thing named; and Hebrew is devoid of onomatopoeia. There is a good number of names in Hebrew consisting of only one single consonant:
אב, בא, אם, אח, גיא, עוד, וו, זיז, חח, טיט, לול, פיף, ציץ, קיק
and hence each consonant in these words must have an inherent meaning - it be a uniliteral root.
We have mentioned here recently the Hebrew word גג, 'roof'. Why does it consist of a repeated ג, to express the fact that it is twice what it is. I see גג as גאה-גאה, 'high-high'. Consider further the word גמל, 'camel'. Did the word come suddenly from nowhere? No, it must embody in it the apparent nature of the camel. I see it as consisting of the elementary "semantic" particles
גמל = גאה-מאה-עלה
The camel is a lofty גאה-עלה and massive מאה beast.
But now comes the question of questions: is this analysis consistent? Look at Hebrew roots with a ג in them and see.

שמיר "dill" is not the same as אכיל "edible," and neither of them conveys some feminine sense contained in י = היא, as you propose.

היא need not be "feminine"; it is 'he, it'.
שמיר "dill" is שמ-היא-ר, a plant that carries ( היא he, it ) the property שמר, related to סמר and צמר.
אכיל "edible" is אכ-היא-ל with the internal היא he, it, referring to the thing that may be eaten.

Sometimes, sounds are added to create forms, which create opposition to other forms, which carry meaning.

I don't believe Hebrew was created by piling up sounds "to create forms in opposition to other forms."

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Jason Hare writes

You are the only person in the world (and there are millions of Hebrew speakers) who espouses this theory of yours

Maybe yes, maybe no, I don't know who agrees with me and who does not. I hope more of the millions of Hebrew speakers will join this forum.

This was invented in your own mind.

Yes! in my own cute little mind.

but it does not represent how Hebrew really works

If this is what you say, then maybe you are right, we just need to hear more substantial arguments as to why "it does not represent how Hebrew really works". How does Hebrew "really" work?

Inflectional languages, like Hebrew, mark verbs for person, number and gender

Yes, but how does Hebrew do it. Does Hebrew "mark" verbs for other things?

English doesn't really do this

Yes, because English is no more a root based language, it became a word based language.

and אכלה is feminine

What does it mean that it "is" feminine?

Hebrew marks verbs to agree with their subjects.

Yes, but how does Hebrew do it, and what is "their subjects"?

The fact that you like to reject all other languages

Not if they are root based.

People bring up Aramaic and how it behaves

Aramaic is a variant of Hebrew.

Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Latin all use -a as a feminine marker for adjectives and nouns

Yes but they are not root based languages.

you prefer to take the position that Hebrew is somehow different from the other languages of the world.

Hebrew is a well preserved root based system.

It isn't. The same principles exist in Hebrew as exist in every other language known to man.

Used to be, but was lost with time.

And no language in the world uses personal pronouns inserted into words to determine patterns.

I do not know all languages of the world, but English does not insert PPs because it has nowhere to Insert them. No more roots in English, only distinct words of a lost grammar.

It must be demonstrated

Whatever I do will never be enough of a demonstration for some people with a preexisting ideological agenda. I am not here to woo no one, if you reject "my theory" it will be your own loss. You also never came even close to refuting it.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Jason Hare writes

You are the only person in the world (and there are millions of Hebrew speakers) who espouses this theory of yours

Maybe yes, maybe no, I don't know who agrees with me and who does not. I hope more of the millions of Hebrew speakers will join this forum.

This was invented in your own mind.

Yes! in my own mind.

but it does not represent how Hebrew really works

If this is what you say, then maybe you are right, we just need to hear more substantial arguments as to why "it does not represent how Hebrew really works". How does Hebrew "really" work?

Inflectional languages, like Hebrew, mark verbs for person, number and gender

Yes, but how does Hebrew do it. Does Hebrew "mark" verbs for other things?

English doesn't really do this

Yes, because English ceased to be a root based language a long time ago.

and אכלה is feminine

What does it mean that it "is" feminine?

Hebrew marks verbs to agree with their subjects.

Yes, but does Hebrew do it, and what is "their subjects"?

The fact that you like to reject all other languages

Not if they are root based.

People bring up Aramaic and how it behaves

Aramaic is mutated Hebrew.

Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Latin all use -a as a feminine marker for adjectives and nouns

They are not root based languages.

you prefer to take the position that Hebrew is somehow different from the other languages of the world.

Hebrew is a well preserved root based system.

It isn't. The same principles exist in Hebrew as exist in every other language known to man.

Used to be, but was lost with time.

And no language in the world uses personal pronouns inserted into words to determine patterns.

I do not know all languages of the world, but English does not insert PPs because it has nowhere to Insert them. No more roots in English, only distinct words.

It must be demonstrated

I have amply demonstrated it.

Isaac Fried, Boston University