Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Lexical question

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ishinan" <ishinan AT comcast.net>
  • To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Lexical question
  • Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:15:16 -0500


Karl W. Randolph. wrote:

To All: Recently I went through an exercise in lexicography, so I thought I'd
share what I did.

As I was reading through Proverbs 28:15 for the nth time, reading DB $WQQ, I
finally said "This is enough! This doesn't really mean that." What I referred
to was the term $WQQ, which can be either from $WQ or $QQ. Yet when I looked
at dictionaries, both terms seem to have almost the same meaning, centering
around pouring out.

The first step was to research bears a bit. What I found out is that bears
spend almost all their time either sleeping or foraging for food. And when
they are foraging for food, watch out! They are dangerous. That little human
may just be that tasty treat that helps get enough energy to wake up after
hibernation. Now I don't know about ancient Israeli bears, but if they were
anything like northern European bears, humans were considered fair game. The
picture I got from the verse is of a bear padding about, looking for food.

Notice, I am not looking at the bear as a subject, but as an actor,
concentrating on his actions.

The next step was to look up $WQ and $QQ in a concordance. Under $WQ, I found
Joel 2:24 and 4:13, both in the Hiphil where wine/oil presses cause the
fluids to come out. Hence the idea of pouring listed above.

All the other uses which from form appear to be Qal, Piel or Pilel were of
people, locusts and other legged creatures. The contexts indicate that these
subjects were out and about, usually for the purpose of acquisition, such as
through purchase, foraging and/or looting.

Looking at one derivative, $WQ meaning city street lined with shops and
stalls, I get a picture of people wandering around the stores getting their
supplies. Again the idea of being out and about.

So the final conclusion I draw is that the verb refers to being out, usually
for the purpose of acquiring stuff.

Previously I had not listed $WQ "shin (leg)" as a derivative of the same root
as the verb $WQ, because I could not see the meaning connection between
"pour" and "shin". The connection of a shared form is not enough to show a
shared etymology, at least not in my mind. I need to see a meaning connection
as well. But now, when I see a verbal use indicating creatures with legs
being out and about, i.e. "legging around", now I see a meaning connection as
well. Only now am I able to recognize an etymological
connection as well.

In closing, my revised dictionary listing now says:


???? to be out, often for the purpose to acquire stuff, through foraging,
purchase or looting ? ???? being out and about ? being all over the place
(like locusts in a field) Is 33:4 ??, ????, ??? shin (bone) (? the idea of
being out, walking around "legging about"), an animal's right rear leg given
as part of a feast to show honor, ???? ?? ??? idiom, meaning "dead", for
people who lie with their legs so twisted can only be dead, it is very
uncomfortable for the living, ???? city street lined with stalls and stores ?
market where people are out and about among the sales stalls and stores to
acquire stuff

(I hope all the symbols come through.)

Since I just went over this definition during this week, the steps are still
fresh in my mind and I thought it might be of interest to others just where I
get my definitions from. Most of the times, however, I have no problem with
the dictionary meanings I found in other dictionaries, so I use those.

What do you all think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ishinan: My suggestion is to apply the comparative method among other
daughter Semitic languages (such as Akkadian, Ugaritic, Arabic, Ge?ez, etc.)
to your examples. Consult the respective Proto-Semitic etymologies. You'll
actually discover that the examples you gave above are homonyms.

I have found that sometimes the entries in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of
the Bible can be misleading.

For example:

7783 shuwq overflow, water.
7784 shuwq shook street.
7785 showq shoke the (lower) leg/shin.

These are not related. Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Ishinan B. Ishibashi










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page