[b-hebrew] NGD neged *nagad
randallbuth at gmail.com
Thu Sep 23 02:51:17 EDT 2010
> On 9/22/10, Randall Buth <randallbuth at gmail.com> wrote:
>> One must distinguish between what a word means and
>> the contexts where it can be used.
> Say again?
> The contexts of where it is used is part of its meaning.
Karl, this is not a point of debate. Let me try to clarify.
It simply means that when
a word is used in a particular context one does not transfer
meaning from that context to another context on the basis
of the same word being used in both. For example, a word
like le-shaleaH (sh.l.H. pi``el) 'to send off' can be used in
both positive and negative contexts. A person should not
read the word in a negative context and then say that in a
positive context it implies negativity. Jud 3:18-19 has
someone sending off his friends and accompanying to an
apparent border (place of statues), a very friendly context. Also
Gen 18.16 Abraham accompanying and sending off angels.
While Gen 12:20, 21:14, and Dt 22.19 [=divorce], are in
unfriendly contexts. Neither 'with friendliness', nor 'with
unfriendliness' is part of the meaning of le-shaleaH.
Everyone agrees on this.
I believe that this side discussion developed out of
questioning your claim that 'neged' implied "intimacy".
>> See 2Sm 12:12, among
>> others, where it is public, and in 'deed' not in speech.
> My understanding of the verb is that it sometimes deals with a deed
> rather than specifically with speech.
[The verb here is `asot 'to do'.]
Neged is a preposition here, parallel to "be-[seter]", not a verb.
Or are you neologizing a verb here?
And the context of this aside was showing how 'intimacy'
was not part of the meaning of 'neged', which would make any
comment about a verb 'not to the point'.
>> Even with the soft wording 'would be expected to mean',
>> the word 'therefore' is an argument from etymology
>> and the conclusion is unreliable. For examples
>> where etymology cannot be relied on with prepositions
>> and verbs, consider bli בלי, approx. 'without' and
>> the related verb balah בלה, approx. 'wear out'.
. . .
> I wonder how many nouns, adjectives and adverbs are their
> own roots, not connected to any Hebrew verbal root?
did you want to claim that that any of the list were not
related? E.g., that p.n.y./p.n.h was not related to l-p.n.y. ?
Or maybe that m.n.g.d was not related
to *nagad and le-haggid?
>> However, I am not sure that you would
>> be willing to go in this direction since the meaning
>> that you find in Dan 10.13-16 is also found in
>> Eccl 4.12 ya`amdu negdo יעמדו מגדו. Of course, you could
>> date Qohelet to the Second Temple period, but you did
>> not want to do that last year.
> No, I do not see that meaning in Ecclesiastes 4:12.
You do not see it? Why not?
(and it is noted that you did not specify what you thought it
meant. If you negate something it is often helpful to specify
what it is that you are actually claiming, expecially when the
context has nothing/little to fill in.)
ושר מלכות פרס עמד לנגדי֙
we-sar malxut Paras `omed le-negdi [21 days]
the ruler of the kingdom of Persia was standing in front of
me/=resisting [21 days].
אל־העמד לנגדי ...
... el ha-`omed le-negdi.
'to the one standing to-in-front-of me'
אם־יתקפו האחד השנים יעמדו נגדו
im yitqefo ha-eHad, ha-shnayim ya`amdu negdo.
if someone overpower/attack him, the one,
the two will stand against/resist him.
Both Dan and Ecc seem to be referring to aggression and
opposing the aggression. There is a difference between the two
in the use of a prefix lamed, but the basic meaning with `amad
remains the same.
[KR] >>> Many of the uses in Nehemiah seem to be
>>> deliberate archaizing to pre-Babylonian uses,
>> It would first need to be
>> shown that the sense 'in front of, within sight' was
>> no longer in use, but Nehemiah itself is evidence that
>> that meaning was still in use. So it is a case of
>> assuming a conclusion against the actual evidence.
> My impression of the whole book that it is archaizing,
> not just this one term.
[Karl's impression is evidence?? You don't give anyone
else that priviledge. Please be modestly consistent. And
also note that we do not bother to do a diatribe against
'arguments from authority', self-proclaimed, false,
or legitimate, nor against 'English glosses'.]
'Deliberate archaizing' means that you are claiming that a
particular phrase was no longer in use. But that it was
used for the effect of giving an ancient feel.
What sayest thou?
did I just archaize in English?
Finally, you never specified just exactly what thou claimest
that *nagad (qal) meaneth. You link it to neged, but without
stating whether *nagad is transitive, intransitive, or stative?
You need to pick something or you will have virtually nothing
and no word to think with, losing another piece of BH.
Randall Buth, PhD
randallbuth at gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
More information about the b-hebrew