Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>]

Vince, I think you are both right and wrong here. Right that these words
should be treated as distinct lexical items with distinct meanings. But
wrong in assuming that these are simply homonyms with no etymological
connection. There is good reason to understand (along with BDB) the
sense BRK "bless" as a secondary sense of BRK "kneel"; also B.:R"KFH
"pool, pond" as derived from BRK "bless", in a cultural context in which
a pool or pond of water is a very real blessing and evidence of God's
bounty. If there is evidence that these come from really separate roots,
I have not seen it. The "root fallacy" comes in when exegetes misuse
these links to tell us something about the "real" or "original" meanings
of the words.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
  
-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Medina, Vincent
Sent: 22 January 2003 06:56
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] The Meaning of brkh

Wes:
 
To attempt to derive the meaning of brk “to bless” from other roots with
the same spelling is to commit the infamous “root fallacy” (the mistaken
assumption that the meaning of words is derived from their roots). The
other roots you mention which mean “spring” or “knee” are merely
homonyms, i.e. words which are spelled and sound alike but have distinct
meanings. These occur in every language. In English the word “bank” and
refer to the land at the edge of a body of water or a financial
institution. It would be a mistake to believe that one of these meanings
is derived from the other. There are numerous other examples in your
Hebrew lexicon of different roots with the same spelling. They should
also be treated as distinct lexemes. Hope this helps.
 
Vince
 
Solo Deo Gloria