Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

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/