[b-hebrew] SHK'aKH was THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM MYSTERY IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES.
ishinan at comcast.net
Sat Oct 17 17:44:16 EDT 2009
Karl Randolph wrote:
On the contrary, the comparative method between languages can exacerbate
etymological errors. The reason is that individual words can have very
different meanings even between very close sister languages.
A story that I heard gives an example: a Swede went to Trondheim, Norway,
and in the evening hopped into a cab giving the instruction, “Ta mig til en
rolig plass.” (Take me to a place where the night life is hopping). The
Norwegian driver heard, “Ta meg till en rolig plass.” (Take me to a quiet
place) and so drove to a cemetery. The story may be apocryphal or the
Swedish use slang, but it illustrates how comparative linguistics would not
catch the Swede’s use (Norwegian “rolig” (pronounced roo-lig) German ruhig).
In comparative linguistics, which meaning of $KX is favored—the Aramaic “to
find” or the Hebrew “to forget”?
Upon linguistic examination of the SHK'aKH examples mentioned in your
response, in Hebrew and Aramaic, these terms are unrelated. i.e. they do
not have a common etymological origin. They are considered false cognates.
Those who attempt to lump them together under the guise of being polysemous
(through the idea of disclosure of a covered or forgotten thing) are
actually barking up the wrong tree.
The Hebrew sense of SHK'aKH ; "to be oblivious of, from want of memory or
attention, or to forget" has a Hebraic origin (independent development in
Hebrew). It has nothing to do with the Aramaic's sense to "find", which in
its own right had its origin in Aramaic.
Aramaic has a long history of diverse and widespread use. This has led to
the development of many divergent varieties which are sometimes treated as
dialects. Since SHK'aKH is attested in both Eastern and Western dialects,
it is safe to conclude that its origin is to be found in Proto-Aramaic.
Conclusion: the Hebrew and Aramaic terms here represent two distinct
concepts, sharing the "same name" or signifier. Simply put, they are
homonyms. The inclusion of both terms in the Old testament text is mainly
due to the influence of a people who, at one point, had shifted to another
language as their primary community language.
The fundamental technique of Comparative Semitic Philology is to compare
phonological systems, morphological systems, syntax and the lexicon of two
or more Semitic languages using techniques such as the comparative method.
For example, a common etymological origin for the term "forget" (in
Comparative Semitic Philology) would be: the Proto Semitic: *nshy .
The cognate term is "nashah". In Genesis 41. 51 "And Joseph called the
name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, [said he], hath made me forget all
my toil, and all my father's house." Also found in Lam 3:17, Jer 23:39, Isa
5382 nashah is a primitive root; to forget; figuratively, to neglect;
causatively, to remit, remove:--forget, deprive, exact & 5388 nshiyah
forgetfulness Psa 88:12
The gods can be forgetful; Motu reproaches Ba'lu that he has forgotten(
nshy) to invite him to a banquet and ba'lu does not deny this. Source: KTU
1.4: VIII. 67 and KTU 1.5: 1. 26.
"nsy/nsw/nsA" : To forget, to constrain oneself to dismiss something from
the mind, hence, "mansiyah": forgotten; nisiyAn: forgetfulness.
I hope this helps.
More information about the b-hebrew