Highlights 02 and Highlights 03

 


HIGHLIGHTS OF COMPARISON 2

  • BILITERAL AND TRILITERAL
    These terms are also used to indicate the presence of two respectively three consonants in the roots of words in Hebrew.

     

    Development of roots from bilateral to trilateral has taken place in many ways, but the subject has not yet been elaborated sufficiently. The dominating idea of triliterality of Hebrew roots may have been an impediment. Consequently the use of affixes, especially prefixes for the extension of roots has been underestimated.

     

    There is an awareness that biliterality in the prehistoric past was more important , but to what extent this was the case has not been established. In our view biliterality has been dominant in prehistoric language and trilateral roots have mainly developed out of bilateral roots. This is confirmed when we put together groups of trilateral roots that have in common the first two radicals and bear related meanings, as shown many times in our similarities.

     

  • USE OF BILITERAL ROOTS
    In order to use bilateral roots for the formation of words, vowels (or semivowels) are needed. There are two main systems:

     

  • System One
    In the first system the used vowel is pronounced between the two consonants. Very frequently one finds a vowel " O " or " U " in this position. Later this vowel is expressed by a letter "waw", that is then defined as a "mater lectionis", which it originally is not. It is just a letter that symbolizes one of the sounds of the group "W;U;O;V", that may be vowel or consonant. In modern Hebrew we still see an example like that of "shor, shewarim", singular and plural of the same word for "steer".
    The importance of the use of the vowel " O " in very many bilateral roots in Hebrew is emphasized by the fact that also Indo-European cognates of Hebrew words often use this same vowel.
    One should not suppose that the vowel has been added, as it must have existed right away to make pronunciation of the bilateral root possible.

     

  • System Two
    In the second system a syllable is added to the word by pronouncing a second vowel after the second consonant.
    A certain fixed opinion about Hebrew roots simply and basically having three consonants as radicals has led to the idea that in this second syllable a third radical was used or even born. The obvious fact that no recognizable third radical is regularly present in the affected forms seems to have been neglected.
    Scholars in many cases, like in the verb "qan" that uses in its forms sometimes the letter "Yod", sometimes the letter "H", suppose that either one or the other has been elided. In reality these letters just represent the sounds of affixes. They have been added to the spelling for reading needs.

 


 

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMPARISON 3

  • DEVELOPMENT FROM BILITERAL TO TRILITERAL
    Extension of roots from biliteral to triliteral has taken place in many ways. Three systems are particularly important.

     

  • DOUBLING THE SECOND CONSONANT AS RADICAL
    This is a system that has been generally recognized as such, and that is seen as having been practiced already in pre-historic Proto-Semitic . It usually does not contribute to the development of new meanings for the root in question.

     

  • ADDING A DIFFERENT THIRD CONSONANT AS RADICAL
    This system can be seen widely in reality, already in pre-historic and hypothetical Proto-Semitic. It has been used to diversify meanings on the basis of identical biliteral first parts of roots.
    A useful example lies in the biliteral " P R " with a basic message of "to break". It is a cognate of this English word. It has been extended into "PRM = to tear", "PRD = to divide", "PRS = to break, split", "PRTS = to break through", "PRQ = to break apart", "PRTH = to break off", "PRGH = to break forth", "PRK = to crush, crumble". One notes that Hebrew uses as well a root created by doubling the second consonant " R " : "PRR = to break , shatter, crush".

     

  • ADDING A PREFIX
    This system has been widely practiced, but has not been studied and recognized thoroughly as such . It is again the comparison with Indo-European roots that makes this reality more evident.
    A few examples :
    N as prefix in Hebrew "nafal" = English "to fall" and in many others.

     

    Vowel (Aleph) as prefix in Hebrew "arakh" = English "to reach" and many others.

     

     

 
Created: Tuesday 6 November 2007 at 22.30.54 Updated: Tuesday 9 April 2013 at 17.39.50