[b-hebrew] Hebron: The Linguistic Search for the Patriarchs' Bronze Age "Hebron"

dwashbur at nyx.net dwashbur at nyx.net
Fri Oct 10 13:05:36 EDT 2008

On 10 Oct 2008 at 10:18, JimStinehart at aol.com wrote:

> 2.  I disagree, however, that "Sharon" has anything to do with "song" or "
> rejoice".  That does not make sense for the Plain of Sharon.  Most analysts 
> agree that "Sharon" means "plain" or "the level place", as the Sharon Plain is 
> a "plain" that is "level".  The logical root word for "Sharon" is thus 
> Y$R, meaning "level" or "plain".  

Names, in every language, don't necessarily follow any logic.  Pere's example of Liverpool 
is a good one.  My last name is Washburn, which is an old English term meaning "fuller's 
stream" even though, until I looked it up further, I had no idea what a "fuller" was.  (I thought 
it was what I get at an all-you-can-eat buffet.)  You keep referring to "most analysts" but the 
only ones you've actually cited are Gesenius and Strong, and I already addressed  those.  
Who else do you have, if anyone?  Here you're likely to run into a problem because many of 
these "most" are built off each other rather than off actual direct research.

> As is often the case, a -WN suffix is added 
> to make Y$R into a geographical place name (which also means, per your analysi
> s, "fulfillment of level").   Usually, though not always (as Karl Randolph 
> properly pointed out), H/he is used as a prefix with this name.  H + Y$R + WN.  

No, both Pere and Karl pointed out that the  -WN suffix most likely just makes the word a 
noun.  Hence, if it was built off Y$R, it could just as easily mean "the right place."  But it 
could just as easily be built off $YR as Pere indicated, meaning "singing" or "rejoicing."  You 
just keep saying the same thing over and over without offering any further evidence.

> But as Dave Washburn and I discussed, there is not a single geographical place 
> name in Biblical Hebrew that begins HY$ 

If you're going to cite me, do it correctly and add what I actually said: this little factoid is 
meaningless for your argument.  That's even more true now that you have admitted to Pere 
that you are probably wrong about the -WN suffix denoting "place."

Why is it meaningless?  Because we have a limited corpus of material, and there is plenty 
that we don't know about the language, the region, and the history, especially when it 
comes to place names and such.  There may well have been such a "geographical place 
name" (if we must use the redundancy) that began in such a way and it simply hasn't been 
preserved.  Or there may not have been, but in terms of your linguistic arguments such a 
thing has no significance.

The rest of this material, and especially the  speculation about H/X and all that, is so lame 
that I can't even think of a good way to address it.  I don't mean to sound snide, but you're 
getting nowhere.  As Karl said, you came her asking for opinions about your linguistic 
arguments from people who know more about it than you do.  You have gotten those 
opinions and the reasons behind them.  I suggest you take them to heart and realize you're 
heading  down a wrong path with this stuff.

As I often tell my kids, if you don't really want to know the answer to a question, don't ask it.

I apologize if I crossed a line of civility here.  I'll shut up now and won't respond to this topic 
any further unless directly challenged.

Dave Washburn
"I'll hold the nail.  And when I nod my head, you hit it with the hammer."

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list