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: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:59:40 +0200

Dear Peter,

You wrote:




Dear Peter,

I note that you do not entirely agree with the saying that a word has no meaning without a context. But you did not answer my questions regarding the three Hebrew words I mentioned. Such an answer could reveal the degree of your agreement/disagreement with the mentioned saying.

I did answer your question, at least implicitly. No words, including the three you asked about, are entirely meaningless out of context, though the sense in which a grammatical particle can be said to have a meaning out of context is debatable. Well, you make things easier below by restricting this to substantives (nouns).

Now we are approaching a stage where we can get some substance out of this discussion. You state correctly, though in the negative, that no words are entirely meaningless out of context. But still you have not said what you put in the word "meaning". And this is the basic weakness of most discussions regarding the question "What does this word mean". What do we mean by "mean"?

A common fallacy is to think that the *meaning* of a Hebrew word is found in Hebrew/English lexicons. What we find there are *glosses* - English words that have been used to translate this particular Hebrew word - and not *word meaning* (I know you agree regarding this).

The fallacy on which the "lexicon-fallacy" builds, is that a situation of translation (which is communication) is handled as if it were a situation of non-translation (communication inside the source language). A "presupposition pool" is the common knowledge and understanding of the world which a particular group has built on their language, their culture, their religion, and everyday life". There is one situation of communication between individuals having the same presupposition pool (e.g. a native Hebrew seeing the word NEPESH in different contexts) and a complete different situation when communication between individuals having different presupposition pools is sought (e.g. translation from Hebrew to English). If this is not appreciated - and it seldom is - the result of one's quest for meaning will be hopelessly inadequate.

In a situation of translation it is true that "a word does not have a meaning without a context". Modern Hebrew/English lexicons are built on the principle of induction (and much theology). To find the Hebrew glosses to use for a particular Hebrew word, the authors had to look at the contexts where the word was used. What they found was not "the lexical meaning" of the word but the "translational meaning". In contrast, when we deal with a situation of communication inside one presupposition pool, it is utterly false to say that "a word does not have a meaning without a context". Such a saying would imply that "lexical meaning" is found in a written document or in the sounds of speech - but this is a third fallacy! Lexical meaning ("lexical semantics") is found in the *minds* of living people -those who have the same presupposition pool.

The native Hebrew had already a lexical entry in his or her mind which was triggered when NEPE$ was seen or heard. He or she did not need a lexicon or a context for this entry to be triggered. Exactly the same is the case when we read or hear "snow", "man" or " kill" - or perhaps better - when we hear the word "meaning" (we have a notion when we hear this word, although specification is highlyneeded). We do not need a lexicon or a context to get a particular notion - it comes instantly. True, by just hearing the words, we know nothing about "the reference", nor are we aware of any stress or specification. But the "meaning" of the *words* - and word meaning is what we are speaking about - are triggered in our minds. Therefore, I would say that the entry in the "mental lexicon" is THE MEANING of the word, from the point of view of lexical semantics (not from the point of view of translation). So your saying that "No words... are entirely meaningless out of context" is an understatement. The context is not needed at all in connection with the *lexical meaning* of a Hebrew word, because this meaning is found in the Hebrew mind. But for the purpose of reference, of modification, specification, stress etc the context is needed, but in this connection we should not speak of lexical semantics (lexical meaning).

There are many advantages with modern theories of Bible translation - and these are all the time changing and being more refined. One basic weakness, however, in most of these theories (as I see it) is the lack of stress of the role of the native human mind in connection with word meaning (Psycho-linguistics). In an attempt to clothe the message in modern words that the readers can understand, the role of the context is highly exaggerated. And little or no attempt is made to let the reader have a part in the translation process, by choosing renderings that let the readers do the final interpretation rather than the translator. The food is completely chewed by the translators! I see the advantages of modern translations that "specify" the uses of Nepe$ - interpreting its uses for the reader - by using many different words. However, it does not serve the interests of the readers that they are not told that by this approach some of the original meaning (yes, I say "meaning") is lost and other meaning is added - to the point where there is much "noise" in the communication (the communication of NEPE$ to the modern reader is somewhat distorted). This unhappy side-effect is unavoidable and should not prevent the making of meaning-based translations. However - and this is very important - meaning-based translations should be complemented by literal translations! Because these have both advantages and disadvantages that meaning-based translations do not have, and can help the readers to see texts from different angles.

The advantage of the literal translation is that lexical meaning (connected with the mind) is directly communicated between the author in the source language and the recipient in the target language (e.g. NEPE$ triggered one concept in the mind of the native speaker, and one word "soul" can be used to trigger one concept in the modern mind). The disadvantage is that many modern persons already has, because of religious dogma, a concept of "soul" which is very far from the original NEPE$. This means that the challenge of the modern reader of the literal translation is to purge his or her mental concept "soul" by looking at the contexts where "soul " occurs in the Tanakh. In this way the reader will have a part in the very translation process, because looking at a word in context is translation.

It is a pity that modern textbooks and courses for Bible translators teach that functional equivalence and meaning-based translation are the only viable methods of translation. These are fine methods serving good purposes, but the exclusion of the literal approach leads Bible readers in a direction which prevents them from understanding what lexical meaning really is.








--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/

Best regards

Rolf Furuli




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page