Re: [b-hebrew] etymology? -- [was »"virgin" vs. "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14«]
kwrandolph at email.com
Sun Apr 3 20:54:09 EDT 2005
There is only one root that is actually expressed in Tanakh, and in looking at all the derivitives used in Tanakh, there is no indication that there are any unexpressed roots.
The Arabic is a different language from a millenium later. Proto-Semitic is merely postulated based on presuppositions I believe are in error, based on the documented histories of some other languages. Ugaritic post-dates the earliest Hebrew by centuries, besides being a cognate language. Just because a cognate language has a phone or phoneme, does not mean that B-Hebrew ever had it. The same with lexemes. Just because a cognate language used a lexeme a certain way, does not mean that B-Hebrew ever used it in the same way.
Now I know that you disagree with much of what I claim. That doesnt bother me. But you have absolutely no historical data to back up your claims. All I have in the internal claims of the extant documents. You, as the one challenging the internal claims, need to show actual data to show why the internal dates are not to be trusted. So far you have shown none, at least none that is based on history or linguistics. In fact, I wouldnt be surprised if some of what you think is evidence is anachronistic application of post-Biblical Hebrew or even cognate languages to Biblical Hebrew.
In closing, I have seen no evidence from within B-Hebrew that would indicate that (LMH is other than the technical term for virgin. There are a couple of verses that at least hint that BTWLH could be one who is not a virgin.
Similarly that the root (LM means other than to make or be unknown. True, it is often used in the hiphil or causitive format, making it a synonym of STR to hide, but that does not change the root meaning of unknownness.
As for the theological implications of taking (LMH as virgin in Isaiah 7:14, that is outside the pervue of this discussion list.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Uri Hurwitz" <uhurwitz at yahoo.com>
> Of course; I avoided mentioning the other root, beginning
> with 'Ayin, to prevent confusion, especially since it is totally
> separate in lexical meaning from that of ' Almah, which started
> this discussion.
> Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org> wrote:
> On 02/04/2005 16:36, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
> > In the discussion of 'Almah one should keep in mind that this is
> > one example of the change from proto-Semitic "ghayin" ( which
> > disappeared in Hebrew, Phoenician etc.) into "'Ayin" , (YN. Other
> > examples in BH are Ghaza, the city name that became 'Azah in BH,
> > S(.)aghir, "small", became Tsa'ir, "young" in BH.
> > 'Almah is the F. of 'Elem in BH which is the exact equivalent of
> > Ghulam in Arabic, meaning a young man.
> ....And this Arabic root is not to be confused with the one underlying
> `aalam "world-- ....
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew