[b-hebrew] Genesis 25:25, Different Lexemes?
tladatsi at charter.net
tladatsi at charter.net
Sat Sep 17 15:25:36 EDT 2005
This exchange clearly illustrates my point. There is a
sufficiently wide semantic domain in this lexeme to allow
the author to create amiguity as to which exactly part of
'DM is meant, hence the basis for punning and irony.
> From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> Date: 2005/09/16 Fri AM 06:56:44 EDT
> To: tladatsi at charter.net
> CC: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 25:25, Different Lexemes
& No Puns?
> On 16/09/2005 04:49, tladatsi at charter.net wrote:
> >Not the same lexeme?
> >The OT is quite clear that the nation of ?DM is supposed
> >be named after Esau s nickname ?DM (Gen 36:1 and 36:8).
> >For this to be true, the two words would have to be the
> >exact same lexeme. ...
> I accept that the country name Edom is the same lexeme,
the same name,
> as the personal name Edom.
> >... Esau s nickname was given to him
> >because he asked his brother for a bowl of ?DM (Gen
> >There seems no way to me for someone to be named after a
> >bowl of red stew and that name not being the same lexeme
> >the red stew. ...
> I am not sure that I accept that a personal name can ever
be the same
> lexeme as a common noun (at least when derived in this
way - the
> opposite process e.g. "Hoover" is a different matter).
When a common
> noun becomes used as a proper noun, I would suggest that
it becomes a
> new lexeme - although the concept of lexeme may need to
be extended to
> apply to proper nouns at all.
> I note that it is usual practice in dictionaries which
list proper names
> to list them as separate entries from common nouns, even
> form is identical and their derivational link is clear.
> >... Three of these words are unquestionable the
> >same lexeme, each being a link in a chain of thing being
> >named after each other, all of which are red. ...
> Do we actually know that the stew was red, or this simply
> the Hebrew root?
> >... The only
> >questionable word is ?DMNY which is universally
> >in ancient times and modern as red, reddish, or ruddy
> >(e.g., LXX purrakhv, Vulg. rufus). ...
> This is certainly a distinct lexeme, formed from 'DM and
> suffix. You are misunderstanding the concept of lexeme by
> suggesting the possibility that this is the same lexeme.
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release
More information about the b-hebrew