Roots according to R. Buth
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Dec 29 17:02:46 EST 2000
At 12:10 PM -0800 12/29/00, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>Randall Buth wrote on b-hebrew list:
>
>> Roots are second order derivatives, abstractions. They are not ("were not")
>> part of the real, funtctional semantic framework of the language but are
>> ("were") only an undeveloped potential of the language, and/or a
>> non-communicative historicization (=etymology).
>
>Here we have a fine sample of R. Buth "roasting his own." I thought it was
>worth posting here for the benefit of those who don't follow b-hebrew.
Sounds sort of like Aristotle's prime matter, not to be found in its pure
form ever but only at the minimal state in earth, air, fire, and water.
Shall we go back to the nominalist/realist game?
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list