Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: <pporta AT oham.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
  • Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:04:13 +0200

Pere,

Of course we all “know” [more or less] what XALAH means by context and universal experience, yet you did not tell me what it means. Unfortunately, all you give me is translation --- the replacement of one vague word in Hebrew by two ambiguous and doubtful words in English. Without precise knowledge, you will agree with me, there can be no meaningful discussion of the semantic affinity of GALAH and XALAH. We need to understand, or try to understand what the ancient Hebrews concretely meant by saying that someone is XOLEH. To see more on the equivalence of GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL see my posting from September 6, 2007.

What I mean by the ‘equivalence’ of D, Z, T, Y, S, C, $, T is that they are all ‘essentially equal’. If you replace in a Hebrew root say D by, say, C, then you get a new root of the same “family”, or same basics meaning as the original. Since we are not dealing here with sharp and clearly delineated mathematical objects the meaning of ‘equal’, ‘close’, ‘same’, and so on must be understood in the more general sense of agreement and understanding.

Examples do it all. Take for example 1 Kings 5:22-23

וַיִּשְׁלַח חִירָם, אֶל-שְׁלֹמֹה לֵאמֹר שָׁמַעְתִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַחְתָּ אֵלָי אֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה אֶת-כָּל-חֶפְצְךָ בַּעֲצֵי אֲרָזִים וּבַעֲצֵי בְרוֹשִׁים עֲבָדַי יֹרִדוּ מִן-הַלְּבָנוֹן יָמָּה וַאֲנִי אֲשִׂימֵם דֹּבְרוֹת בַּיָּם עַד-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-תִּשְׁלַח אֵלַי וְנִפַּצְתִּים שָׁם וְאַתָּה תִשָּׂא

How did the ancient Hebrews [or for that matter, I as a boy of tender age] know what the rare word DOBR-AH means, even if they had possibly never heard it before? First, King Solomon was a wise and practical man [as are we] who understood the logistics of transporting several hundred large tree trunks from the Lebanon to Jerusalem, and would have done the same inventive and sensible thing Xiram proposed to do. But he had also a keen, discerning, and sensitive ear, not spoiled yet by dictionaries and the like, to the language and could understand right away the choice of this, possibly Canaanite, word DOBRA-AH. His intuition told him within a microsecond of the equivalence of

DOBRA-AH, ZOBRA-AH, TOBRA-AH, YOBRA-AH, SOBRA-AH, COBRA-AH, $OBRA-AH, TOBRA-AH

Then his mind picked out TOBRA-AH, [recall TABUR of Judges 9:37], COBRA-AH [recall CIBUR, ‘heap’ of 2 Kings 10:8], $OBR-AH [recall the two SEBER of Isaiah 30:14 and Genesis 42:1], TOBR-AH [recall the mountain name TABOR of Psalms 89:13], and he got it right away that DOBRA-AH is a pile [COBRA-AH CBUR-AH or TOBR-AH TBUR-AH of $OBR-AH $BUR-AH] of floating tree trunks.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

----- Original Message ----- From: <pporta AT oham.net>
To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH


Pere,
I will give you a detailed answer, but first explain to me (no traslations
and no converses please!) what you think XALAH, 'ill', means.

__________

We should study in detail the 75 issues in the Bible where verb XALAH appears (in all forms and conjugations).
But taking as a model 1K 17:17, where a boy XALAH and ... died, I think XALAH means (in qal) "to be weak, sick", as we read in dictionaries.
Now, I think all of us know (either in theory or in practice) what "to be weak, sick" means: so no need of explanations on this...

Pere Porta




Isaac Fried, Boston university

----- Original Message ----- From: <pporta AT oham.net>
To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH


It is my understanding that this grouping is governed
by the equivalence of

B, P, W

G, H, X, K, Q

D, Z, T, Y, S, C $, T

L

M

N

R

________

I think you should explain what does "equivalence" mean within your theory.

For instance:

1. Does it mean that two words that differ only by one letter must have a similar meaning if this different letter is one of the group you have created? (Let us say GALAH, to uncover, and XALAH, to be sick)
2. Does "equivalence" mean that words having one of these letters of the group as one of their root letters can be dealt -or must be- with according to some given rules that apply to all words of this type?
3. Summing up: what does "equivalence" mean in your theory?
Please, give your answer up without forgetting some illustrating examples too.

Pere Porta
Barcelona (Spain)
_________


with each letter being actually a single consonant root, in particular L
indicating elevation. By this hypothesis the root SLH [H here is just a
filler] is a variant of the roots DLH, *ZLH, TLH, *YLH, SLH, CLH, $LH, TLH,
where * indicates a potential root not in use. All these roots essentially
and inherently mean ‘pull up, pull out, draw up, draw out, extract’. Hence a
sensible translation of the Psalms verse is ‘you pulled out all those
deviating from your laws’.

Now we understand also the relationship between the biblical SILON, ‘thorn’,
and the modern SILON, ‘jet’, as in MA-TOS SILON.

DELET, door’, is methinks but a TELET, a hanging flap over the entrance.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

----- Original Message ----- From: <pporta AT oham.net>
To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH


I will give you a detailed response, but first explain to me this. SALITA of Psalms 119:118 is translated by the NAB as 'reject', [the KJV has it as 'trodden down']. Is this translation correct, and if yes how do we know it to be so?

Isaac,

you are putting a question here which is difficult to answer to. Mainly, to my sense, because Ps 119:118 is the only place where this verb SALAH appears in the Bible (in qal) (the word T:SWLEH in Job 28:16 comes from another quite different SALAH)
We can often be accurate as regards the "exact" translation of a given word because we can verify the different meanings or shades of meaning this word got in other places of the bible (mainly in the same book we are dealing with... )
But here it is not so.
The dictionary (my dictionary) meaning of SALAH (in qal) is "to make light of", "toss aside". If this meaning is right (or if these meanings are right), both translations you mention are (would be) wrong... because either "reject" or "tread down" are concepts that differ from "to make light of" and from "toss aside".
One must too take into account the meaning or sense of the preceding verses (117, 116, 115...) or even of the whose psalm (which verses I have not read nor the psalm...): I feel this can also help to fix the right translation of SALAH in Ps 119:118 but, of course, it is not sure it will help.

I think this is all I can say as a replaying to your question.

Pere Porta
Barcelona (Spain)
[cut]



__________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com





__________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page