Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dan Wagner <Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net>]

Peter Kirk says, "So I don't think such speculation gets us anywhere towards
understanding the Hebrew Bible."

I agree, although even if we could establish the etymology, it still would
not be an asset to our understanding for any common word for which the
meaning is established by usage. Usage is the key to meaning. 

Dan Wagner

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 02:01
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: RE: shamayim = sha + mayim ?


Welcome, Rasmus!

Gesenius' suggestion is not impossible. But bear in mind that, because forms
like shamayim (but mostly singular in form) are found in all branches of
Semitic, any such compounding process must have taken place in or before
"proto-Semitic". We can reconstruct so little from that period that
Gesenius' suggestion can only be very speculative. This componding must have
happened so long before Biblical times that shamayim would have been
understood by the Biblical authors as a lexical item in its own right, they
would certainly not have thought of it as a compound. So I don't think such
speculation gets us anywhere towards understanding the Hebrew Bible.

Peter Kirk