[heb]עֲרָבִי[/heb] Isaiah 13:20

[Jason Hare]

Hebrew finds it useful to compound the end personal pronouns, for example,
עֲרָבִית = ערב-היא-את, 'the arabic language'
עֲרָבִיָּה = ערבי-היא-היא 'an arab woman'

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Oh yes, since "Arab-she-you" means "Arabic language." I get it now. Similarly, סוף-היא "reed-she" means "storm" and אוזניה "ear-she-she" means "headphone."

[Isaac Fried]

Jason says

Oh yes, since "Arab-she-you" means "Arabic language"

I am sorry, but "Arab-she-you" is silly English. עֲרָבִית = ערב-היא-את is, however, very fine Hebrew.

I get it now

I am really very glad you do.

Similarly, סוף-היא "reed-she" means "storm"

סוֹפָה = סוֹף-היא is 'her end'. The סוּף in סוּפָה, 'storm', has nothing to do with "reed". Yet גּוּפָה = גוּף-היא is 'corpse'.

"headphone"

In Hebrew: ראש-קוֹל?

Since there is no Israeli language, therefore
ישראלי = ישראל-היא, 'a man (or thing) of Israel'
ישראלית = ישראלי-את 'a woman (or thing) of Israel'

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jason Hare]

Would you be willing to translate an entire verse (not just a word) into your semantic building blocks?

How about Genesis 1:1 in your breakdown?

[Isaac Fried]

Jason
It is not clear to me what you mean by "translate". The insertion of the personal pronouns into the root is specific to Hebrew (and its sister languages). The indo-European languages lost their root system a long time ago, and their natural grammar vanished for good into the historical fog of the millennia.
One thing is, in my opinion, immutably true about Hebrew, which is that the sounds אוֹ, אוּ, אִי represent, inevitably, personal pronouns - references to an actor or to a thing.
Who specifically these אוֹ, אוּ, אִי are needs to be learned from the body of the language. Thus
סוּגַר = ס-הוּא-גר, 'cage'
שוֹבַר = ש-הוּא-בר, 'coupon'
סִיגַר = ס-היא-גר, 'cigar, an enclosed סגוּר roll of tobacco for smoking'
סָגִיר = סג-היא-ר, 'closeable'
סָגוּר = סג-הוּא-ר, 'closed'
סְגוֹר = סג-הוּא-ר, 'close!'
שוּלָח = ש-הוּא-לח, 'sent away'
שָלוּחַ = של-הוּא-ח, 'emissary'
שָלִיחַ = של-היא-ח, 'envoy'

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jason Hare]

One thing is, in my opinion, immutably true about Hebrew, which is that the sounds אוֹ, אוּ, אִי represent, inevitably, personal pronouns - references to an actor or to a thing.

This is particularly the part of your position that I think most absurd. These are simply vocal patterns used to manipulate roots. The root may stand for a certain concept (or more than one), and the specific vocal pattern into which it is fit determines the part of speech that the word becomes. Is it an adjective? Does it represent a state? Is it a verbal expression? Active or passive? Causative or reflexive? The vocal pattern is not the simplification of personal pronouns. It is simply VOWELS being used in tandem with the roots. The way that you read אכיל "edible" as אכ-היא-ל is just baseless. I cannot agree with this in the slightest, yet you play it as your trump card. This is neither immutably true nor arguably true. It's simply false.

[Jason Hare]

What I meant by "translate" is "convert into individual pieces."

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
ב-ראש-היא-את באר אלה-היא-הם את ה-שמ-היא-הם ואת ה-ארץ

Something like that. Using whatever random, arbitrary, and theoretical divisions you think are necessary. Actually show us how you analyze language beyond the level of the individual word. Just how many personal pronouns do you think need to be inserted into an entire verse to show where the words came from?

I have a feeling that if you take this beyond the level of words and word groups, even you will see just how obscenely unfounded this theory is.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason says

These are simply vocal patterns used to manipulate roots

It is really really not clear to me how the "vocal patterns" "manipulate roots." What is this "manipulate"?

The root may stand for a certain concept (or more than one), and the specific vocal pattern into which it is fit determines the part of speech that the word becomes

Yes, but how is this accomplished? Look at this סוּגַר is 'cage', but שוּגַר is 'sent away'. So, what is the inherent (part of speech) distinction between them. Easy. In סוּגַר = ס-הוּא-גר the internal PP הוּא refers to the device itself, while in
שוּגַר = ש-הוּא-גר the internal (the "infix") PP הוּא refers to the beneficiary of of the act שגר. Same with הֻשְלַךְ = הוּא-שלך.

The vocal pattern is not the simplification of personal pronouns. It is simply VOWELS being used in tandem with the roots

It is not clear to me what this abstraction "used in tandem" is supposed to mean, and, still, how this VOWEL tandemization is supposed to create adjectives. Here, it is easy, יצחק חמוּד is with חמוּד = חמ-הוּא-ד in which the internal הוּא refers to יצחק having the property expressed by חמד. What is wrong with this?
The way that you read אכיל "edible" as אכ-היא-ל is just baseless. I cannot agree with this in the slightest, yet you play it as your trump card. This is neither immutably true nor arguably true. It's simply false.
Jason, I am sorry, but you need to somehow substantiate your claims to me. Claiming that it "is just baseless", "I cannot agree with this in the slightest", or that "It's simply false", is no more than expressing a personal hunch.
What I am really waiting for is to hear a clear and decisive logical argument as to why I am wrong.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Jason says

What I meant by "translate" is "convert into individual pieces."

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
ב-ראש-היא-את באר אלה-היא-הם את ה-שמ-היא-הם ואת ה-ארץ

Something like that. Using whatever random, arbitrary, and theoretical divisions you think are necessary. Actually show us how you analyze language beyond the level of the individual word. Just how many personal pronouns do you think need to be inserted into an entire verse to show where the words came from?

I have a feeling that if you take this beyond the level of words and word groups, even you will see just how obscenely unfounded this theory is.

What I am saying in this thread is something very clear and very well defined (also true and useful), namely, that the sounds I, O, U in a Hebrew word are not random sounds, but are rather, immutably, the personal pronouns היא-הוּא standing for an actor or a thing.
This claim is restricted to words and therefore "how you analyze language beyond the level of the individual word" is, I am sorry to say, immaterial here.
I will eagerly look at any counter example you may come up with.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jason Hare]

I'm sure that you're convinced that every word can be analyzed in this way. Since every word has vowels, I can imagine that every instance of a non-a or -e vowel will be interpreted by you in this way. It's convenient that so many words have i, o, and u inside them. It's a theory of convenience, since the vowel choices are so extremely limited.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason says

I'm sure that you're convinced that every word can be analyzed in this way. Since every word has vowels, I can imagine that every instance of a non-a or -e vowel will be interpreted by you in this way. It's convenient that so many words have i, o, and u inside them. It's a theory of convenience, since the vowel choices are so extremely limited.

Yes. Indeed. The sounds i, o, u in any Hebrew word invariably stand for the personal pronoun היא-הוּא referring to an actor in a verb, and to a thing in a noun. invariably. It is the ultimate insight into the "morphology" of the Hebrew word.
For example:
חוֹתָם = ח-הוּא-תם, 'seal', from the root חתם.
חֲלוֹם = חל-הוּא-ם, 'dream', from the root חלם.
but
חָתוּם = חת-הוּא-ם, 'sealed', still from the root חתם.
שוּלַח = ש-הוּא-לח, 'was sent away', from the root שלח.

Isaac Fried, Boston University