Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hello Peter:

This mailing list must be your hobby, you’re very active on it. That makes it 
fun for us as well, thanks.

Further comments below.

----- Original Message -----
From: 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.

The question is: did they merge in Hebrew, or diverge in Arabic? Seeing as 
Arabic is later, ....

Languages not only lose phonemes, they also gain them. From what I have seen, 
languages gain phones and phomenes from contact with other languages and 
dialects. For example, English does not have the German ‘ch’ sound, yet it is 
only the rare English speaker who does not know nor recognize that sound. So 
far, its use in English is limited to names and loan words, mostly from 
German, but now that that sound is recognized in English, it is available for 
use for a neologism as well.

One of the reasons that I read Tanakh in Hebrew, is because I don’t trust the 
standard translations. Though to be honest, the first reason that I read 
Tanakh in Hebrew (and the New Testament in Greek) is because I thought I may 
have to translate them into other languages besides English. I figured that 
if that were true, then it would be better for me to recognize meanings 
according to Hebrew standards, than according to English translation 
standards.

As far as XBL is concerned, it has a very wide meaning with no equivalent in English. It is used over a hundred times in various forms, yet I have yet to see a single time that it refers to a meaning other than ‘to tie or bind’ or any derivitive attached to it, such as muscle contractions (labor pains), restrictions (like mentally tying up a person so he can‘t act), packing (a troop of foragers packing to carry off what they have just looted), putting people into a group, and connecting land to a town or a loan to collateral. 

> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm