Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

To All:

Sorry for the mixup in my previous posting. The following is what I thought I 
had sent.

Renier de Blois took this discussion off list, but he brought up issues that 
I think are broader than just those between the two of us, so I bring this 
discussion back on line.

> In
> cognitive linguistics the meaning of a word is linked to a mental image.
> Every word invokes a mental representation in the mind of the person who
> hears it. This representation depends on culture, world view, etc. If a
> dictionary uses glosses only there is a big chance that the English word
> used evokes a picture that is significantly different from the one that
> existed in the mind of the Hebrew speaker. Therefore we are trying to
> use definitions that contain several kinds of information, such as:
>       -descriptive information (what does it look like)
>       -source information (to what category does it belong, what is it
> made of, why is it done)
>       -function (what is it used for, what is the purpose?)
>       -connotation (how is it regarded?)
>       -participants (who is doing what to whom? Is it an inanimate
> object, it is human, is it God?)
>
> People can use SDBH to study Hebrew in two ways: They can look up the
> lexical domain of rope and find other words, such as (ABOT, )AGUDDAH,
> etc. The comparison of XEBEL with those other words help to really
> understand the difference between these three words. A solid and well
> structured definition of each word is needed in order to be able to do
> this well. A Bible translator needs this in order to be able to find
> equivalents in the target language.
> At the same time, the user can do a search on the basis of a frame. If,
> for instance, XEBEL is used in the frame of measuring. A search for the
> frame yields a list of words that belong to this frame, both objects
> (measuring rope, measuring reed) and events (to measure). That is
> another perspective.
> Lexical domains (or cognitive categories) give a paradigmatic
> perspective (words belonging to the same category) and contextual
> domains (or cognitive frames) a syntagmatic perspective (words belonging
> to the same frame. Both aspects can be very helpful to understand how
> the Hebrew language worked including its culture and world view. So all
> the divisions of meanings and submeanings are needed in order to be able
> to get to the internal coherence of the language within its system of
> experience, practices, and beliefs.
>

Is this the way ancient Hebrews thought? Or are we imposing our modern way of 
thinking on the ancient Hebrews?

Let’s take a modern example: What image do you see when you think of an 
automobile, or what we Americans call a “car”? Is it any specific example, or 
general shape, or is the image lacking totally? Renier de Blois’ statement 
made me stop and think.

For me, when someone mentions “car”, I don’t get an image. Cars come in so 
many different sizes and shapes that the term “car” has no image connected to 
it in my mind. All I “see” (perceive) is a function: a car is a self powered 
vehicle owned (or leased) by an individual for the transportation of himself 
and/or a small group. (A car is sometimes owned by a government or company to 
fulfill a specific function, such as a “police car”.) A “sedan” is a car 
defined by its shape, so I get a generalized picture when a sedan is 
mentioned. The same with a “hatchback”. A “station wagon” is a sedan with its 
cabin stretched backwards to make a squared off back. A “van” is shaped 
similar to a miniature bus, a vehicle that can fulfill many functions in and 
around town. A “pickup truck” is an outlier to the definition, but it is 
often used as a car, thus making it a subset of “car”. What about a SUV? They 
range all the way from the diminutive Suzuki to the monsters made by GM and 
Hummer, a
 nd many different shapes in between. It is harder for me to get an image of 
a SUV in my mind. Like “car” above, a SUV is defined by its function more 
than its shape.

With this in mind, what did the ancient Hebrew think of when he thought of, 
for example, XBL? Did he “see” an object, long and snake-like, or did he 
perceive a function of binding or grouping together where a “rope” is just an 
excellent object to fulfill that function? Did the ancient Hebrew see the 
form or function first?

As I understand Renier de Blois, he defines XBL first by form, namely a rope. 
He then looks at the varied uses of the lexeme in all its forms, to see if it 
fits together. It doesn’t all fit together. As a result, he posits four 
different etymological roots for XBL.

I, on the other hand, view XBL first as a function, namely binding together 
or grouping together (where there is no object doing the binding). All the 
uses of XBL that I have analyzed fit that one function. As a result, I see 
only one etymological root.

My question comes down to: to what extent is it legitimate for us to use our 
Weltanschauung, our way of thinking, when defining Hebrew lexemes  and when 
does it become an imposition of our categories, a distortion of the ancient 
Hebrew understanding?

>  I should clarify one other
> thing here: SDBH is a dictionary primarily intended for Bible
> translators all over the world. Many of them are not native English
> speakers. English is just a vehicle of communication. Therefore more
> extensive definitions are needed so that the users get a complete
> picture of the meaning of a word. Glosses are often misleading.

Renier de Blois has a valid critique of what I have done. I wrote my 
dictionary assuming a native speaking knowledge of American English, 
including nuances and unspoken understandings that a non-native speaker often 
does not know. If I wish my dictionary to be used by non-native speakers of 
American English, I need to flesh out my definitions with full definitions, 
instead of “glosses” where my understanding of the Hebrew term is almost 
identical with the gloss.

>  I believe
> that XBL in Nehemiah 1:7 and Job 34:31 refers to that type of inner
> corruption, hence my suggestion: I will not sin.

Are these the only examples in Tanakh where you claim that XBL has the “to 
destruction” meaning? If so, I read the verses so differently from you that I 
do not see how your definition fits at all. Does the “to destruction” come 
from cognate languages? In both verses, I think the “binding together” 
meaning fits the context better than the “to destruction” meaning.

To close, here is my methodology (to contrast with Renier de Blois’ listed 
above)  (Renier, I list it only to bring others up to speed on what we have 
discussed): 

1) A lexeme almost always has only one meaning. It may have no equivalent in 
English (even for words from the same etymological root) or there may exist 
an almost exact equivalency. The meaning may be very broad and general, or it 
may be very narrow and specific, or in between.

2) Where a lexeme has more than one meaning, there is usually a discernible 
connection, for example, Birne in German means both light bulb and pear, the 
connection being that the early light bulbs had a pear like shape.

3) Where a lexeme has a narrow and specific meaning, it often is either 
partially or wholly a subset of another lexeme. Therefore, one way to learn a 
lexeme is to compare it to its synonyms.

4) Lexeme meanings are best recognized by the action they refer to, not the 
form. This is especially true of ancient Hebrew.

5) Lexeme understanding and usage may be influenced by the context, such as 
literary style, figures of speech, use as euphemism, or where the presence of 
a specific lexeme may actually make it part of a complex lexeme (two or more 
words combining to make another meaning, e.g. “strike out” having a different 
meaning than “strike” alone, but the historical connection is still 
discernible.)

6) This may be unique to Hebrew, where a noun of an object can be a reference 
to an action. For example, David and his men were a XWMH a protective barrier 
for Nabel’s sheep and shepherds, i.e. their actions protected.

7) This is, after all, a dictionary from one language to another, therefore, 
as much as possible, I used as few words as possible, preferably one, to 
describe a Hebrew lexeme as long as that was accurate. For example, XB), used 
about 34 times, has almost the exact same meaning as “conceal” in English, 
though sometimes in Hebrew it is with a niphal where English would have a 
reflexive or active. (There is a slight but noticeable difference between XB) 
and XBH, so I list them separately.)

(Though Biblical Hebrew was written over a span of 1000 years, most of it was 
written during a time when the language was pretty stable. There was some 
change which is discernible and an example of dialectal variation, but almost 
none that I could recognize that would change the definitions of lexemes.)

In reference to category 4) above, ancient Hebrew seems to categorize 
according to action or function, not according to form or appearance. For 
example, (WP or (WP KNP is usually translated as “bird”, but that is not 
accurate. It actually refers to flying creatures where the action is the 
deciding factor, hence a bat or flying insect is (WP while an ostrich or 
penguin is not. (This is also an example of 1) above—there is no equivalency 
for this term in English.) Similarly, a XBL rope would be defined by its 
ability to bind things together, not its shape.

So what do youall think?

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