Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 07/10/2003 12:14, Karl Randolph wrote:

> Dear Peter:
>
> I am cognisant of that argument, but I deliberately did not mention it.
>
> When I already question how applicable a contemporary cognate language is to 
> the understanding of a Biblical Hebrew word, even question the use of 
> Mishnaic Hebrew at times because languages change, how authoritative should I 
> consider a cognate language first written over a thousand years later? If 
> your only evidence is Arabic (which was the case at the time of Gesenius, 
> even BDB) when the evidence internal to Tanakh and Biblical Hebrew indicate 
> otherwise, it makes your argument even more presuppositionally biased and 
> speculative than my admittedly speculated definition I proposed for Proverbs 
> 30:19.
>  
Well, etymology is quite an exact science concerning forms of words in 
cognate languages, though a poor guide to meaning. And Arabic is rather 
close to Hebrew. In Arabic there are two separate words, obviously from 
different root consonants, ghulaam (with gheyn) = boy and `aalam (with 
`eyn) = world. It is well known that Arabic gheyn and `eyn both 
correspond to Hebrew `ayin. It doesn't take much of a leap to conclude 
that Hebrew `elem/`alma corresponds ghulaam, and that `olam corresponds 
to `aalam. But you don't have to accept this evidence if you don't want 
to. Just accept that there is even less evidence, i.e. none at all, for 
most of your speculations.


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