Mark:Mark Lightman wrote:…Fried, ASEHL, p. 3. My sense at this point is that the principle holds true in Biblical Hebrew (and English) except when it does not. But then, you can say that about most linguistic principles. The difference (note the "r") is that Isaac writes better than any linguist I know of, so one has increased tolerance to test his theories. The wit and audacity of his prose remind me of no one as much as Nietzsche, who himself was a pretty good philologist.kwrandolph wrote:From where do you get the idea that words of separation and variance should have a ר? That’s not in Biblical Hebrew.
Fried is a mathematician, not a linguist. He learned his Hebrew growing up in Israel (at least that’s what I gleaned from discussions on this list), so his Hebrew is modern, not Biblical Hebrew. I have tested his theories as he has discussed them on this list and found them wanting. Often the definitions of words he uses to support his theories are modern, or I don’t know from where, and don’t mirror their uses in Biblical Hebrew. As a result, I don’t recommend his theories to anyone. If I don’t respond to his postings now, it’s because I don’t read them. If I see “I. Fried” as the poster of a message, I skip to the next message.
When we study a language, we need to study it as it is used, not how we think it should be. Too many theories are based on how we think it should be.
Karl W. Randolph.