Biblical Hebrew Forum

[furuli AT online.no]

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.