הולל a quadriliteral root?

[Isaac Fried]

For the affinity of גלל, חלל, תלל GLL, XLL, TLL consider this: תל TEL is 'mound', as in Deut. 13:(16)17. גל GAL is 'heap', as in Gen. 31:46. חל XEL is 'bulwark', as in Isaiah 26:1.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

The variants הלל נבל נפל all contain ל, the fundamental concept of elevation. (ASEHL p. 3) Before you can fall, you have to be elevated. Before you can be the type of נבל who would say אֵ֣ין אֱלֹהִ֑ים (Psalm 14:1) you have to be first raised up in haughtiness.

Dear Mark:

What you have mentioned is not good linguistics, nor even science.

The difference between what I write and what Isaac Fried writes is the difference between medieval speculation and science.

Isaac Fried seems to follow medieval speculation—he started with a model, then tries to make everything fit that model. That might work for some areas of math, but not for the natural sciences. Linguistics is a natural science in that it follows the methodology of natural science. The methodology of natural science starts with observation, then looks for patterns in the observations. Recognized patterns make up its models, to be changed when other observations contradict perceived patterns.

What I’ve noticed about Isaac’s models is that their exceptions outnumber the examples that follow his rules. As far as I tell, he bases his theories solely on form, which is ridiculous when applied to linguistics. This often leads to the nonsense of claiming that words that have completely difference meanings share the same etymology. That goes way beyond what is called “the etymological fallacy”. As a result, no linguist gives any credence to his theories.

As for the lamed, its form was originally based on the shepherd’s staff designed for pulling and pushing, it had nothing to do with lifting up. It was originally written horizontally. Nor does the sound have any such connection.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Mark Lightman]

Hi, Karl,

Isaac Fried seems to follow medieval speculation—he started with a model, then tries to make everything fit that model. That might work for some areas of math, but not for the natural sciences. Linguistics is a natural science in that it follows the methodology of natural science. The methodology of natural science starts with observation, then looks for patterns in the observations. Recognized patterns make up its models, to be changed when other observations contradict perceived patterns.

Maybe it's just me, but I see only a difference of degree, not in kind, between Isaac and other linguists. Language is imprecise, vague, multi-valant, subjective and idiosyncratic. It is not the sort of thing that lends itself to analysis which is in any way scientific. Any linguistic proposition, presumably based on observing the language, is always only partially true; there are always exceptions and other ways of looking at the issue. More often than not, linguistic patterns exist in the mind on the linguist and are subjectively read into the language by the linguist. Very little about language can ever be proven or falsified.

But what Isaac is doing has advantages over what other linguists do, so I am willing to put up with the subjectivity and speculation.

The difference between what I write and what Isaac Fried writes is the difference between medieval speculation and science.

You and Isaac are doing different things. You are not an etymologist. Because we have no evidence for the pre-history of Hebrew or any other language, etymology is bound to be even more speculative and un-scientific than other types of linguistic activity. An etymologist also must first decide if language is intelligently designed or not, and that can only be based on religious presuppositions that lie outside the scientific method.

The difference between what I write and what Isaac Fried writes...

One difference is that you are providing English glosses for Hebrew words and providing English meta-language to explain how Hebrew works. You move the reader AWAY from Hebrew and towards English grammar-translation. Isaac, on the other hand, takes the reader deeper INTO Hebrew. First of all, his book is written in the target language, (though he does provide an English translation for the introduction) which has to be a plus. Secondly, there is very little meta-language in his book or in his posts. The bulk of his work is connecting Hebrew words to OTHER HEBREW words. He says something very important on the first page of ASEHL:

The intent and resolve of Hebrew etymology is to reveal the inner sense and logic of the language...(p. 1, emphasis added)

The INNER sense of Hebrew. Most other linguists who write ABOUT Hebrew take you OUT of the language. But for Isaac, Hebrew etymology is "an entirely internal affair." (p. 1.) To that extent, he is not really a linguist, not a lexicographer or a grammarian, but a Hebraist, and therefore bound to be more ultimatley useful to learners who really want to internalize Hebrew as Hebrew.

Don't get me wrong, as far as it goes, I really like what you are doing. I like your dictionary and I love your grammar above because they are short and concise. I want to spend as little time in these grammar-translation resources as possible and get back to Hebrew as quickly as possible, and your resources help me to do this. (You have also given the best advice I have every received about Hebrew grammar: "Ignore the grammar and focus on the meaning.") But Isaac's connections cause me to never leave Hebrew in the first place, and this is a real advantage. What I mean is, whether הוללות means "madness" or "forcefulness" is ultimately a non-target language question, whereas whether חלל is a variant of the root תלל is not.

What I’ve noticed about Isaac’s models is that their exceptions outnumber the examples that follow his rules.

There is no doubt that there are lots of exceptions. You have a point here. Also like other linguists, Isaac's principles are sometimes so vague and subjective that they are difficult to falsify, but again, I think this is the nature of the business.

...no linguist gives any credence to his theories.

Yes, but this is probably because Isaac's ambition far outstrips what other linguists attempt. He is trying to get to the pre-history of language and to come up with a plausible theory of how it developed. Also, his assumption that language began in Eden will cause anti-intelligent design linguists to disregard his theories a priori. But again, though sharing some of the faults of linguists, he is not really a linguist, but something greater than that.

[kwrandolph]

Dear Mark:

Hi, Karl,

Isaac Fried seems to follow medieval speculation—he started with a model, then tries to make everything fit that model. That might work for some areas of math, but not for the natural sciences. Linguistics is a natural science in that it follows the methodology of natural science. The methodology of natural science starts with observation, then looks for patterns in the observations. Recognized patterns make up its models, to be changed when other observations contradict perceived patterns.

Maybe it's just me, but I see only a difference of degree, not in kind, between Isaac and other linguists.

Isaac is not a linguist, as you bring out below.

Language is imprecise, vague, multi-valant, subjective and idiosyncratic.

Your statement is self-contradictory, for it uses precise, objective language to deny itself.

As a son of a math professor, I have seen my father use language if a very precise, clear and objective manner, even for subjects other than math. Growing up in that environment has helped me recognize and avoid sloppy language, and the sloppy thinking that is behind sloppy use of language.

It is not the sort of thing that lends itself to analysis which is in any way scientific. Any linguistic proposition, presumably based on observing the language, is always only partially true; there are always exceptions and other ways of looking at the issue. More often than not, linguistic patterns exist in the mind on the linguist and are subjectively read into the language by the linguist. Very little about language can ever be proven or falsified.

The purpose of science is an accurate description of phenomena connected to the physical universe. Human language is one of those phenomena. Part of giving an accurate description is falsifying wrong descriptions about those phenomena. But falsification is NOT the center of the scientific endeavor. However, any claim that is not open to being falsified by the scientific method is not science.

For example, my claim that the majority of present referent conversational sentences recorded in Tanakh where one can verify the conjugation consist of subject-verb in Qatal-optional object. That is first of all a description, but it is also falsifiable.

Likewise linguistics makes descriptions of languages.

But what Isaac is doing has advantages over what other linguists do, so I am willing to put up with the subjectivity and speculation.

I see nothing but confusion and disadvantages to his claims.

The difference between what I write and what Isaac Fried writes is the difference between medieval speculation and science.

You and Isaac are doing different things. You are not an etymologist.

Sorry, etymology is a subset of linguistics. I deal with etymology all the time when analyzing word meanings. I deal with etymology in discussions on this list.

For example, in English “to” are two homonyms, and it is etymology that helps us to recognize that fact.

Because we have no evidence for the pre-history of Hebrew or any other language, etymology is bound to be even more speculative and un-scientific than other types of linguistic activity.

Even the question of pre-history is not scientific, therefore not part of linguistics nor etymology. Did God speak to Adam in the Garden of Eden in Biblical Hebrew? If so, there was no pre-history to Biblical Hebrew.

The moment you go outside of what is observable, you leave science behind and enter the realm of speculation that is medieval at best.

An etymologist also must first decide if language is intelligently designed or not, and that can only be based on religious presuppositions that lie outside the scientific method.

If you talk about etymology that is a subset of linguistics, then your above sentence is nonsense.

The difference between what I write and what Isaac Fried writes...

One difference is that you are providing English glosses for Hebrew words and providing English meta-language to explain how Hebrew works. You move the reader AWAY from Hebrew and towards English grammar-translation.

What???!! What I have written are tools to help English speaking students get into the language, as closely as possible as a native speaker would have used the language.

Isaac, on the other hand, takes the reader deeper INTO Hebrew. First of all, his book is written in the target language, (though he does provide an English translation for the introduction) which has to be a plus.

You mean he wrote in Biblical Hebrew? I doubt that very much. As a modern Israeli, I expect that he wrote in modern Israeli. Modern Israeli is a different language than Biblical Hebrew—it has a different grammar and its vocabulary differs from Biblical Hebrew in the same manner as a cognate language. Further, Biblical Hebrew is only imperfectly known, well enough for an accurate, workable understanding of its main themes, but imperfectly enough that no modern author can recreate it accurately. Therefore I doubt very much that his book “is written in the target language”.

Secondly, there is very little meta-language in his book or in his posts. The bulk of his work is connecting Hebrew words to OTHER HEBREW words.

That’s where I find the majority of his errors in the examples he has listed on line.

He says something very important on the first page of ASEHL:

The intent and resolve of Hebrew etymology is to reveal the inner sense and logic of the language...(p. 1, emphasis added)

The INNER sense of Hebrew.

Errors take one out of, the opposite of entering into, the inner sense of Hebrew.

Most other linguists who write ABOUT Hebrew take you OUT of the language. But for Isaac, Hebrew etymology is "an entirely internal affair." (p. 1.) To that extent, he is not really a linguist, not a lexicographer or a grammarian, but a Hebraist, and therefore bound to be more ultimatley useful to learners who really want to internalize Hebrew as Hebrew.

If one tries to fit Biblical Hebrew into a model, as Isaac does, one is being taken OUT of the languages just as much so as trying to make the language fit any other model.

The reason I wrote my dictionary and grammar is to help people get into and understand the only major work written in Biblical Hebrew, namely Tanakh. If they read Tanakh five, ten, or even twenty times as I have done, they’ll become so familiar with the language that they’ll internalize it. Then they’ll know Hebrew as Hebrew. But trying to make the language fit models, as Isaac is doing, takes people out of the language and into the model.

Don't get me wrong, as far as it goes, I really like what you are doing. I like your dictionary and I love your grammar above because they are short and concise. I want to spend as little time in these grammar-translation resources as possible and get back to Hebrew as quickly as possible, and your resources help me to do this.

You contradict yourself, for you claim above that my work takes people out and away from the language, while here you admit it helps you into the language.

(You have also given the best advice I have every received about Hebrew grammar: "Ignore the grammar and focus on the meaning.")

Actually, if you look at what I actually practiced, I ignored only that grammar for which I had contradictory and false information. That included nouns being used as verbs, verbs being used as nouns and adjectives, and so forth. Much of that was caused by the Masoretic points, so I ignored them. I didn’t ignore all grammar. For if I had ignored all grammar, I never would have been able to “focus on the meaning”. Even as I “ignored” the grammar, I noticed its use, which eventually allowed me to propose a use for the grammatical structures that could be explained.

But Isaac's connections cause me to never leave Hebrew in the first place, and this is a real advantage.

See above. If he is using modern Israeli, he is taking you out of Biblical Hebrew.

What I mean is, whether הוללות means "madness" or "forcefulness" is ultimately a non-target language question,

Not true. Even though the description is in another language, it refers to its use in Hebrew.

whereas whether חלל is a variant of the root תלל is not.

This claim follows no known, observed, pattern of etymology, neither form nor meaning.

What I’ve noticed about Isaac’s models is that their exceptions outnumber the examples that follow his rules.

There is no doubt that there are lots of exceptions. You have a point here. Also like other linguists, Isaac's principles are sometimes so vague and subjective that they are difficult to falsify, but again, I think this is the nature of the business.

...no linguist gives any credence to his theories.

Yes, but this is probably because Isaac's ambition far outstrips what other linguists attempt. He is trying to get to the pre-history of language and to come up with a plausible theory of how it developed.

As I mentioned above, “pre-history” ipso facto takes one out of science and linguistics, also out of etymology, into rank speculation. Once one is in raw speculation not based on observation, one can say anything and no one can disprove it because there’s no observation available to disprove it.

There’s no such thing as etymology apart from observation.

Also, his assumption that language began in Eden will cause anti-intelligent design linguists to disregard his theories a priori.

There’s so much to disagree with his speculation that it makes this claim moot as far as a reason to reject his speculation.

But again, though sharing some of the faults of linguists, he is not really a linguist, but something greater than that.

I see him as less than a linguist, as his work is based on speculation, while linguists’ work is based on observation and science. I have a higher regard for science than speculation. But I have a low regard for those “scientists” who disregard the scientific method to push their own religion/world view/model/philosophy.

I object to those linguists who propose a “proto-Semitic” language for the same reason—they have left linguistics and entered an area of speculation for which there is no observational evidence either pro- or con-.

What I hope for you, and all students of Biblical Hebrew, is that you get so used to the Biblical Hebrew language from reading Tanakh over and over again that you can recognize what is said without conscious evaluating of the grammar, dictionary definitions or any other model, such as Isaac’s.

Karl W. Randolph.