[b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring'

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Sat Jul 13 19:02:54 EDT 2013


Where this controversy comes from is that I have found when studying modern
languages that each lexeme refers to one action—some of those actions can
be used in multiple places (wide semantic range), some in only a few
contexts (narrow semantic range) and some actions can be both physical and
referred to metaphorically.

But what I’ve always recognized is that the identification of lexemes
sometimes can be difficult, especially in Biblical Hebrew, as there are not
only homonyms, but with the vowels not in the original, there are many
homographs which may have been pronounced differently but written with the
same consonants. Furthermore, homonyms can have different sources, e.g. one
being native to the language and its homonym being a loan word from another
language. What makes it even more difficult is that Biblical Hebrew has
many cases where written derivative forms can be traced back to two or more
roots. I don’t see this problem of lexeme identification as negating the
paragraph above.

Where “strike” comes in is that those who disagree with the top paragraph
use “strike” as an example to try to disprove it. But referring to my
second paragraph, there are at least three different sources for “strike”
in English, not one. In other words, we’re dealing with homonyms, not the
same lexeme. Further, in looking at http://www.etymonline.com/ the reasons
for some of the actions referred to by some of the contexts is unknown, the
subject of speculation, e.g. “apparently from foul strike” showing that the
writers of the etymological dictionary don’t know. That’s not the only use
of “strike” where its etymological connection is unknown.

It’s easy to lose track of this discussion as it goes through different
venues over the years.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Jonathan Mohler <jonathan.mohler at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Karl,
> Even in the case of a strike "against" you, it's seems to have originated
> in the "STROKE of a pen".  Same root word as STRIKE of a bat.  Not sure if
> I am supporting your theory here or not, as the discussion has begun to
> confuse me.
> Jonathan Mohler
> Jonathan
> On Jul 13, 2013, at 3:45 AM, b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
> There is another use of “strike” with a form and meaning common to other
> Germanic languages, also used in other contexts in English, with a meaning
> of a negative mark or count against someone or something. An example is
> this headline “Awful derailment in Canada is another strike against tank
> car design: editorial”
> http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/07/awful_derailment_in_canada_is.html
> Either way, “strike” does not mean “to miss”.
> The only reason this argument is being made in b-hebrew is so that you can
> argue that Hebrew words have widely varient meanings, even opposite
> meanings, without being homonyms or homographs. I read this as you wanting
> to play Humpty Dumpty with the text of Tanakh.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130713/9e864483/attachment.html 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list