I had a Hebrew teacher who played with this idea. He pointed me to KRT and KTB,
This set of examples is one I have assembled, and it seems to extend beyond Afrasian:
KT/QT. = 'cut'
KTB 'inscribe'; KRT 'cut'
QT.B 'cut down'; QT.N 'small'; QT.L 'kill"
Massey University, NZ
On 10/07/2013, at 4:57 AM, Stewart Felker wrote:
> I've come across a dissertation by a Bernice Varjick Hecker called "The
> Biradical Origin of Semitic Roots" (University of Texas at Austin, 2007) -
> supervised by Robert D. King (whose main area of expertise seems to be
> languages of the medieval period).
> It argues: "1) that all the words in the first language spoken by the
> Semitic peoples consisted of biradicals; 2) that the majority of the
> postulated biradicals entered the Semitic languages after being expanded by
> the addition of a third radical, with the resulting triradical having a
> semantic relation to the original biradical."
> This seems extremely controversial - I want to say 'indefensible'
> (especially the first part); but I'm honestly not skilled enough in Semitic
> linguistics to really pinpoint exactly why. I also don't understand how
> there's not a contradiction between 2) and 1), in the way that he writes
> Other dubious things include the bibliography only having about 50 works.
> Anyone familiar with this, or have any thoughts?
> Stewart Felker,
> University of Memphis
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]