Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Dear Reinier de Blois:

Thank you for your detailed answer. 

I wonder how to define semantic domains? How do we adjust when the semantic 
domains in one language do not match with those in another language?

To go back to your example, birds (avia) in English are defined by a certain 
pattern of traits: feathers, warm-blooded, lay eggs, bills. As far as I know, 
there are no outliers. Bats and flying insects don’t have those traits, 
therefore they are not birds. Penguins and ostriches do have those traits, 
therefore they are birds.

Another example are mammals (mammalia) are defined by warm blood, fur (or 
hair),  give birth to live young, provide milk for their young. Whales, bats, 
sheep, etc. all have those traits, therefore they are mammals. There are only 
two outliers, if I remember correctly, both from Australia, the duck billed 
platypus which lays eggs and has a bill but otherwise is clearly a mammal, 
and I forgot the other one.

But when we look at Biblical Hebrew, we don’t find these semantic domains. 
(WP  in Hebrew refers to flying creatures, which includes flying insects and 
bats, as well as birds. $RC [sheretz] includes non-flying insects, and what 
else? BHMH includes larger animals such as dinosaurs, cattle and sheep, and 
what else? And “fish” includes dolphins, whales and other swimming creatures. 
The reason I asked “and what else?” is because Tanakh doesn’t define those 
semantic domains, though it mentions them. I know of no other source that 
defines them.

Outside of animalia, how many of our semantic domains are the same as ancient 
Hebrew semantic domains? Could we misunderstand Biblical Hebrew by 
shoehorning Hebrew concepts into English semantic domains? In the examples 
above, it seems that English semantic domains tend towards form, while the 
ancient Hebrew ones tend towards function. For example, it is the same action 
when thieves hide themselves in order to ambush victims, and for refugees to 
hide themselves from pursuing soldiers. The object in both is not t o be seen 
when they don’t want to be seen.

How does one recognize when words are used in irony, as euphemisms, satire or 
other literary effects? Do we risk not having a correct understanding of 
words if we don’t make allowances for such?

Again, thanks for your response.

Karl W. Randolph.
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm