Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>]

> > To find out the
> >meaning, we need to establish the etymology. ...
>
> No, no, NO!!! Meaning is not established by etymology. Meaning is
> established by usage in context.

Everywhere but in Hebrew and to some extent in Chinese. Of course, modern
languages, for one, deviated from etymological meaning, and for another,
accumulated huge contexts. This does not work with Tanakh, where we have a
handful of lamo, and where, as in isaiah 53:8, it is the context that
depends on the meaning of lamo. Again, we have so little of the clear
context that the relation is the opposite: etymological meaning of the word
allows us to clarify the context. In this case, etymological meaning of lamo
as lhemo shows that nega is to people, not to the character.

> >
> Agreed. Even if we agree that etymologically lamo and lmo form an
> absolute/construct pair, that is a poor guide to meaning because the
> meanings of the absolute and construct could have shifted apart.
>

btw, camoha besides cmo might help your smihut argument

Vadim Cherny