[b-hebrew] XSD

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Aug 22 20:43:40 EDT 2005


You are right that my "translation" was not exactly word 
for word, rather it was more free, trying to have a 
smoother reading in English. Therefore it is more of a 
paraphrase, attempting to be true to the meaning.

Strictly speaking, the translation should have read, 
"undeserved good favor of peoples is erroneous" in other 
words missing the mark of justice which exults a nation 
(see first clause context).

As far as accepting previous lexica, for most definitions I 
have no problem. However, I found that in most languages, it 
is rare for a lexeme to have more than one meaning (though 
it is not uncommon for lexemes in one language to lack 
equivelants in another). What finally took the cake for me 
was when I looked up one lexeme (that was so many years ago 
that I forgot which one it was) that was given five distinct 
definitions in Gesenius, but it was used only four times in 
Tanakh. That is ridiculous! No language has such undefined 
terms! The exceptions are loan words that happen to have the 
same form as a previous word in a language (meaning that we 
are looking at two different roots), application of a lexeme 
to a new situation than originally, and convergence where as 
languages change, two lexemes change to having the same form.

The reasons I wrote my own lexicon are two fold: one was to 
try to find the one meaning that a lexeme possesses, whether 
broad or narrow, comparing not only its uses but contrasting 
it to synonyms and antonyms, and secondly to understand 
lexemes according to their actions. Yet I found that for 
most terms, I do not have a significantly different 
definition than provided in other lexica (I am not about to 
change for change's sake, only where I can justify such a 
change) and most of the changes are a matter of degree 
rather than kind (i.e. a close, overlapping synonym).

(The reason I don't mention earlier translations is because 
earlier lexica have done that for me already.)

How is that different than what any good, careful 
lexicographer does?

I've noticed that when you see someone who has a PhD and 
a reputation, that you seem to accept his words almost as 
canon. Hence you go into kniptions trying to justify the 
statements of the "experts" that you espouse. I question 
everyone, including myself. Give me a good argument based 
on the language, and I may change how I understand the 
text: merely quoting "experts" aint goin te cut th' 

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard at ont.com>

> Dear Karl,
> ...
> >
> > In Proverbs 14:34 I understand as "Justice exults a nation,
> > but undeserved good favor of peoples errs." The root meaning
> > of X+) is to miss the mark, to err from which the theological
> > meaning of sin is a derivative. (The New Testament use of
> > hAMARTIA is a parallel to this use, a direct copy of Hebrew
> > usage.) This is one of the cases where I think translating
> > using the theological understanding errs.
> Hh: The problem with this translation is that XSD
> is a masculine noun and the form X+)T is also a
> noun. But even if X+)T were viewed as some
> strange verb form, it would have to be feminine
> and so would not agree with the masculine
> subject. Karl, you need to accept the findings of
> regular lexicons on such basic topics where there
> is widespread agreement. Peter is right that
> there is a second meaning for XSD and your denial
> of this fact drives you into strange
> interpretations.
> 				Yours,
> 				Harold Holmyard

Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list