Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Re: nephesh mot

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: nephesh mot
  • Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:23:04 +0200

Dear list-members,

The words below which are quoted from three of you, express different angles of approach which can be defended. However, we may also use the approach which is based on Ogden's triangle and on Psycholinguistics.

1. There is nothing in the Tanach which suggests that NEPE$ had one sense in one book and another sense in another book. Thus the word can be studied from a synchronic point of view.

2. A word dos have meaning apart from a context. If we asked a group of people how they would understand the English word "soul," we would get a whole range of different comments, but probably we would find some elements which were common to most, or all comments.

3. Regarding a word, we must differentiate between 1) "sign" (its letters/sounds), 2) "reference" (the thing in the world denoted by the word), and 3)"concept" (the meaning found in the mental lexicon). Apart from onomatopoietica, the letters/sounds of a word do not have any meaning. But these letters/sounds signal a concept which is stored in the minds of those having the same presupposition pool. These concepts are difficult to define because they are mental creations. Psycholinguistic research indicate that each concept has a core meaning which is relatively clear to the mind, but that it becomes more and more fuzzy the longer we depart from this core. Because each word (e.g. noun, verb) signal one concept ( or in some cases two, or even three concepts), we can say that a word has a meaning apart from any context. When Hebrew-speaking people in ancient times heard NEPE$ they would get a common notion.

4. It is an advantage for communication that concepts have a core meaning and then become fuzzy. When a speaker or writer used a word, the context would help the listener or reader to understand which side of the concept the author wanted to make visible. Thus the context does not generate new meaning- the meaning is connected with each concept - but the context helps to show which part of the meaning of each concept that is made visible or communicated. From this point of view the word NEPE$ does not have several meanings - it has one meaning - but different sides of this meaning is made visible in different contexts, and different objects may be denoted.

There are Bible translations that consistently render NEPE$ by "soul," and by looking up these passages, one can see that this is meaningful - although it requires more mental exercise from the reader, because he or she must do more interpretations - than when the word is interpreted by the translators.

5. Concepts do not exist for the purpose of definition, but in a discussion we need to say something about the core meaning. The core meaning of NEPE$, as I understand it, is "a living creature with the right to live". A part of this is made visible in all occurrences of the word. A study of the root $LM can help us grasp the point. The core of the concept signalled by $LM is "to be whole or complete". When you are "whole and complete" you have pease, and this is often what is made visible when $LM is used. But what about the sense "to pay", is this a completely different meaning? Not at all! When you sell something, you have -from the Hebrew point of view - lost something of yourself, and you are no longer "whole or complete". When you get the payment, this is a compensation for what is lost, and now you are again "whole and complete". When NEPE$ denotes a dead body, remember that this is the word's reference. Because this corpse *had been* a living creature it could be called a NEPE$. Blood is denoted, because it is the stream of life, which even is accepted by modern people.

6. Whereas some fuzziness is connected with the concepts in the metal lexicon, and in some cases we do not by first glance see that there is a meaning difference signalled by two different words, the concepts *are* separated in the mind. For instance, to say to a Hebrew-speaking person in ancient times, "You will loos your life (XAYIM)." would give a completely different notion than to say, "You will loos your soul (NEPE$)


Best regards

Rolf Furuli




My point more generally is that this word seems to have a wide range of
meanings contextually.

All of which proves the old dictum- words dont have meaning, they have
usage.

Yes. This is why the term "basic meaning" when applied to words raises my
hackles.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page