Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah1:7)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah1:7)
  • Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:19:37 -0500

Dear Karl,

Let's go back to your example of bear: in Norwegian å bære means to carry. As far as I know, it has only that meaning (Rolf can correct me on this). Just because the English has two roots corresponding to the same lexeme is immaterial to Norwegian, especially since a bjørn corresponds to the second English root. Norwegians studying English can speculate if the English word bear originally had one root that later became almost unrecognizable as it split apart in meaning, or if two roots merged into the same pronunciation and spelling, as history shows was the case.

As for the Hebrew use of XBL &#1495;&#1489;&#1500; within Tanakh, I see only one root expressed. In Aramaic the same spelling but a different root. In Arabic, two roots, one corresponding to Hebrew, the other Aramaic. In Mishnaic and later Hebrew (from discussions on this list) apparently use the Aramaic term as a loan word, in the same way as Esther 2:1 uses GZR with the Aramaic meaning instead of the Hebrew meaning.

Were both roots in proto-Semitic? If not, which was the original root? The earliest writings we have show Aramaic with one root, Hebrew with another, and later Arabic had both.

HH: The problem with all this is that most scholars disagree with you about XBL in Hebrew. It seems almost unanimous. And the way you handle verses with XBL at issue seems forced and unconvincing to me.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page