[b-hebrew] a much bigger and relevant issue not exactly about Caleb

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Tue Sep 20 06:51:57 EDT 2011


David:

You are doing three things

1) Etymological error: That error says that if we can figure out a word’s
etymology, we can find its meaning. The reason it is an error is because
words change meanings. So, for example, I cannot read Shakespeare or the
KJV; well I can read them superficially, but not in depth. What trips me up
are not the words that have gone out of use, those I can recognize and look
up, rather the words that have changed meaning from that time to now. There
are hundreds of them. Quite frankly, I have never studied archaic English to
find out which words have changed meaning.

2) Speculation: There are no evidences for some of the etymologies that you
propose, they are pure speculation through and through. If we want to be
scientific about it, we need to start with what is there, not make up stuff
that is never observed.

3) Forcing conformity to a previously chosen pattern: The scientific way of
studying is to make observations, then look to see if patterns exist. One
new observation can invalidate a recognized pattern. You turn that method on
its head, deciding on a pattern, then try to squeeze all new observations to
fit that pattern.

Because I say your methodology is invalid, it leads to invalid results,
GIGO.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:11 PM, David Kolinsky <yishalom at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> Karl,
>
> Unfortunately, I rarely have enough time to thoroughly address your very
> valid points.  Additionally, the paradigm that you seem to be working from
> is clearly differently than my own.  But I would like to make a few points
> that I nevertheless know beforehand that you will reject them.
>
> You are entirely correct that there is also a root שרה that means "to let
> loose,
> immerse, soak, steep, saturate" as in (Jr15:11) and you may even be correct
> regarding Jb 37:3 (I dont have time to examine it fully right now).
>
> However, not every cognate is the same root, it may just appear to be
> such.
> Consider the root (RM which has three sources
>
> 1 - to heap up which comes from  Ayin + RWM (be high)
> 2 - to be naked which come from  (RH (naked) + M
> 3 - to be deceptive, cunning from  Ayin + RMH (deceive)
>
> Likewise ShWR => ShRH has two sources
>
> 1 - to fix upon (visually and physically) from Sh + YRH (to aim, set <
> shoot, throw, penetrate)
> 2 - to set loose, immerse, soak, steep, saturate from Sh + RWH (pour forth,
> water)
>
> So in short, not all cognates are equal or trully the same root.  It seems
> that at times you disallow these differences that may be found in a
> trilateral in root.  Your refusal to see that )ShR is actually two roots is
> evidence for that.
>
> 1 - to confirm, celebrate, be happy ? + ShRH (be firm upon)
> 2 - to go intentionally, directly from ? + ShWR (fix upon visually)
> *obviously the correctness of my derivations stands on less firm ground
> than the examples above
>
> On your point regarding שיר to sing, the wikipedia makes this statement
> under the heading of singing > resonance "Various terms related to the
> resonation process include amplification, enrichment, enlargement,
> improvement, intensification, and prolongation, (although in strictly
> scientific usage acoustic authorities would question most of them.)
> ((parenthesis added by me and included so as not to be accused of
> deception))
> I would argue that the most primitive understanding of singing would be
> less sophisticated where a PROLONGATION of tone would best describe what the
> essence of singing is.  Prolongation basically being the same as "holding a
> note firm."
>
>
> Lastly given the choice between "let loose" and "focusing a thing" I think
> a missile would be derived from the latter rather than the former.  A
> missile "let loose" is of no value if it is
> not "focused."
>
>
> Respects,
> david kolinsky
> Monterey, CA
>
>


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list