[b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Mon Jul 15 09:52:22 EDT 2013
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Karl,
> With regard to no. (6), you said, "In other words, you are arguing for the
> idea that I originally guessed at, namely that a “strike” does not mean to
> miss, rather it means an attempt to hit within a scoring area, or that the
> ball was delivered in such an area that such an attempt should have been
> made but wasn’t. You rejected this before, if I remember correctly, so now
> you push it?"
> No, what I am arguing is that the word "strike" meaning miss was a
> development from the idea of "striking"at the ball and attempting to hit it.
This is what I originally speculated, and at the time my understanding was
that you rejected this idea.
> By a series of developments, the word came to mean "miss" rather than
> hit. The word came to mean something different from what it originally
Sorry, this is not accurate, as hitting the ball but it being foul also
counts, as well as not trying to hit it when it’s thrown fair. Because the
count of “strike” is used for all three, it doesn’t mean “miss”.
> Your headline example, "“Awful derailment in Canada is another strike
> against tank car design," is not an example of a root from a Germanic
> language; rather it is simply a metaphorical borrowing of "strike" in
As I asked Ruth, then how do you account for the exact same use in other
Germanic languages where they don’t have baseball for a metaphoric source?
> You said, "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."
> Karl, this is just plain silliness.
> I treat the text of the Hebrew Bible very seriously and with great
> reverence. For me, the biblical text is the Word of God given by his
> Holy Spirit, and it is infallible.
Irrelevant to the question.
> Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I think it is illegitimate to
> straitjacket the meaning of the biblical text into a preconceived "single
> unique meaning" lexeme theory that at the same both ignores sound
> linguistic theory and subjects the biblical text to one's own whims.
This sounds like a complete misreading and misstating of what I do and say.
Whatever you mean by “single unique meaning”, it doesn’t sound at all what
I say. In other words, you play Humpty Dumpty with my words, and make them
say something other than what I intended. Evidence: you latch onto that
phrase in isolation without considering the whole of what I have said on
> Word meanings do develop over time, and they can in fact develop into
> opposite meanings or nuances. Hebrew is not an exception, and the text
> of the Hebrew Bible, written over the course of a millenniun, is not an
> exception. Failure to recognize this phenomenon is a failure to read the
> Hebrew Bible on its own terms.
Languages in isolation tend to change at slower rates than where they are
active and in contact with other languages. An example was Appalachia in
the 1930s was a place where ethnologists and linguists went to study 18th
century English customs and language, as Appalachia had been so cut off
that it had changed little from that time.
>From the time of Moses to Nebuchadnezzar, Hebrew was a relatively isolated
language where native speakers only rarely heard dialectal differences
within their language, let alone other languages. This is also the only
time where we can confidently say that we deal with native speakers of
Hebrew. After Nebuchadnezzar we have evidence that the people were native
speakers of Aramaic, and all the changes that would cause in their use of
Hebrew. Before Moses, the only evidence we have is Genesis, and we don’t
know how much editing and updating that Moses did to the older language, if
For that 800 year period, how many changes can you document? I’d like to
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
> jshepherd53 at gmail.com
> Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the b-hebrew