Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] lexicography?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] lexicography?
  • Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 04:04:25 -0800

On 12/02/2004 17:37, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:

...

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.


This is a significant point. If BDB and HALOT are to be trusted on the basic facts, there are two distinct verbs in Arabic corresponding to XEBEL, one starting with Unicode U+062D ح HAH and the other starting with U+062E خ KHAH (the same letter with a dot above it), the former meaning something like "tie together" and the latter something like "confound" or "corrupt". These consonants were distinct in the common ancestor of Hebrew and Arabic, and were still distinct in early Hebrew, but later came to be pronounced identically; apparently they were always written identically. It is probable, though not certain I admit, that the two Arabic verbs and the two senses of the Hebrew verb XBL, which correspond well in meaning, are derived from two separate verbs in the common ancestor of Hebrew and Arabic, which implies that the two Hebrew senses have different origins.

Now the time at which the sounds merged may be significant here. If the sounds had already merged during the classical Hebrew period, Hebrew speakers (who would have been unaware of the history) may soon have come to think of these two verbs XBL as variants of the same word, and their derived forms as related, and so (looking purely at one stage of the language) the words may have come to share a semantic framework in the way that Karl has suggested. On the other hand, they may have remained quite distinct words in the Hebrew mind, as commonly happens with homonyms. If the sounds had not actually merged in the classical period (and I have a feeling that that is the general scholarly opinion), the words would have been clearly distinguished in pronunciation and therefore presumably would have been understood as different words, according to Reinier's understanding.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page