Biblical Hebrew Forum

["VALEDICTION" <info AT valediction.com>]

I think I overlooked some of the earlier comments on this thread, so I may
be coming in at a bit of an angle...

I heard an excellent lecture once, on a very introductory level, about what
(I think) you guys are talking about.  Basically, the lecturer (whose name
escapes my recollection at the moment, but I do recall that he was an
Orthodox Jew, who studied Kabbala) pointed out how it can be demonstrated in
Ancient/Biblical Hebrew that the very letters of the words, which each have
their own meaning, are compounded together in the Hebrew language to form
words.  He went through a number of good examples.

And I remember, to show contrast, he did a demonstration in English (which
was easier for me to remember), taking the letters "P" and "R"... listing
out a number of words that use those two consonants:

POOR -- POUR -- PEER -- PIER -- PEAR -- PAIR -- PER -- PAR
... and so on ...

These English words obviously have no relation with each other... there's no
deeper meaning to be found within the letters.

His point was that Bibilical Hebrew (as opposed to modern Hebrew, by the
way) was the only language with which you could find a relation between the
meanings of the individual letters and the very words they make up when they
are compounded.  In English (or any other language) the letters have no
bearing on the meaning of the words... the closest thing we have to this
would be compound words, like "doghouse" or "tailgate"... but in Biblical
Hebrew, you can demonstrate a bit of etymology from the very letters used to
form the words.

Being a Kabbalist, he went a step further, surmising that Hebrew was the
language which God taught to Adam, teaching him the meanings of the
individual letters, so that when God brought all the animals to Adam to be
named (Genesis 2), the names must have reflected the very essence of what he
saw... and he must have chosen the letters that made up their names
accordingly.

Well, even though I myself am not into Kabbala (and, for that matter, I'm
not much of a Hebrew scholar, either) after digesting the points of his
lecture, I found his to be a very interesting conjecture.  If anyone is
interested, I'll see if I can track down the lecturers name... I recall he
was affiliated with Aish HaTorah, and they may still offer the lecture on
audio cassette tape, or possibly even audio cd these days.

Joe Glean --junior member--
>From 06PETERSON AT cua.edu  Fri Jan 24 07:37:22 2003
Return-Path: <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from 136.242.14.28 (unknown [136.242.14.28])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B150520077
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:37:22 -0500 (EST)
X-WebMail-UserID: 06PETERSON
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:38:42 -0500
Sender: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002987
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] regarding the root fallacy
Message-ID: <3E3173B1 AT 136.242.14.28>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:37:23 -0000

>===== Original Message From VALEDICTION <info AT valediction.com> =====
>Basically, the lecturer (whose name
>escapes my recollection at the moment, but I do recall that he was an
>Orthodox Jew, who studied Kabbala) pointed out how it can be demonstrated in
>Ancient/Biblical Hebrew that the very letters of the words, which each have
>their own meaning, are compounded together in the Hebrew language to form
>words.  He went through a number of good examples.

Do you mean he was connecting meanings of individual letters to meanings of 
words, or was he dealing with roots (three-consonant combinations with 
meaning 
that relates to the meaning of words)? If it's the former, I'd be interested 
to know what some of his examples were, but it is something different from 
what we've been discussing. If it's the latter, as your example below seems 
to 
indicate, it's more on target.
>
>And I remember, to show contrast, he did a demonstration in English (which
>was easier for me to remember), taking the letters "P" and "R"... listing
>out a number of words that use those two consonants:
>
>POOR -- POUR -- PEER -- PIER -- PEAR -- PAIR -- PER -- PAR
>.. and so on ...
>
>These English words obviously have no relation with each other... there's no
>deeper meaning to be found within the letters.

Yes, it is a distinctive feature of Semitic languages that many of their 
words 
are constructed according to root and pattern. You won't find this phenomenon 
in English, or any other IE language that I know of. That's not to say that 
we 
don't have words derived from other words; but because the shapes include the 
vowels, there's less flexibility in the forms. I think if you take a look at 
Metzger's Greek vocabulary book you'll be able to get a sense of how IE works 
in this respect.
>
>His point was that Bibilical Hebrew (as opposed to modern Hebrew, by the
>way) was the only language with which you could find a relation between the
>meanings of the individual letters and the very words they make up when they
>are compounded.  In English (or any other language) the letters have no
>bearing on the meaning of the words... the closest thing we have to this
>would be compound words, like "doghouse" or "tailgate"... but in Biblical
>Hebrew, you can demonstrate a bit of etymology from the very letters used to
>form the words.

I don't know Modern Hebrew, but this phenomenon, if I understand correctly 
what he was trying to get at, is generally true of Semitic languages. I'd be 
surprised if it were true of BH in a way that it isn't of just about every 
other language in the family.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics