Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Karl,

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

HH: I don't know all the details but Renier sounds like he knows what he's
doing.

>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.

HH: I don't see how this thinking is necessarily any different from the way
Renier was thinking. He seems to have several categories to use in word
definition. Function is one of them. I think that with many nouns, their
form, including what objects look like, like may be significant.

>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?

HH: I think XEBEL has several meanings and so needs several glosses or
definitions. Even if there is some relation between territory, rope,
portion, and company, those are all denotations of the word and so should
be treated in a dictionary.

>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?

HH: I think we use Hebrew understanding to grasp what the word means, and
then use modern communication skills to convey that meaning.

>>  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.

HH: The letters XBL represent two roots. Yes, the idea of destroy occurs a
number of places. Check the standard Hebrew lexicons. Also, check the
standard translations.

>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.

HH: This does not seem correct. Why do you think the major lexicons use
many terms? It is because these Hebrew words had various meanings. Many
Hebrew words are like this.

>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.

HH: Sometimes a meaning could just develop historically for a word, one
hard to plug into the "root" idea.

>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.

HH: I'm not sure what you mean by "a subset of another lexeme."

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

HH: This is often true but I would not make the rule too absolute.

>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.)

HH. Yes. I'm not sure that the historical connection must be visible.

>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.

HH: It probably is not unique to Hebrew, since verbal nouns are a
well-known idea.

>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.)

HH: Major lexicons often have to use more than one word, but often one word
is sufficient.

>(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.)

HH: I have not really studied this. But denotational change has not popped
out at me. This may be due to editorial updating of the text, although
perhaps not.

>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.

HH: I think rope is a good gloss for XEBEL, but I agree with you that
function is important. I think what you're talking about is that Hebrew is
somewhat a verb based language. The nouns are often thought to derive from
the verbs, and the reverse is much less common.

                                                Yours,
                                                Harold Holmyard