Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> >It only implies that etymological analysis "may" be flawed. In fact,
Hebrew
> >etymology, due to the root system, is much more stable that in Germanic
> >languages. ...
>
> I can find a number of examples of semantic shift between cognates
> within the Semitic triliteral system. A simple one is "shalom" = "peace"
> (Hebrew) and "salaam" = "greetings" (Arabic). Semantically linked, of
> course, but the Arabic meaning is significantly weakened.

Why go for Arabic? You have the same greeting in Hebrew. And it is perfectly
linked with the original sense in its proper form sholom aleiha.
Sure, many words in Hebrew drifted from the root meaning, but by far lesser
percentage than in other languages. A quick glance into etymological
dictionary would demonstrate that, in fact, few English words retained even
their OE meaning. Hebrew is much more robust.

>
> >No doubt, the contemporaries, speaking the living language, knew the
correct
> >meaning contextually. We don't possess this knowledge. Our best bet is
> >etymological. Or do you think four (?) entries of lamo make  a context?
...
>
> Not four, but 55 for lamo plus four for lmo, which makes "dozens".
> That's enough to establish regular usage, although not enough to be
> certain that there are no exceptions.

Yes, 55 entries is good enough to consider the context. I guess quite all of
them clearly refer to collective plural.


>  From your failure to learn the basic lessons he teaches. But I see that
> in fact you have theological objections to his conclusions. I'm not sure
> if that says more about Barr's theology or yours.

Let's say, it says much about my theological attitude to Barr's

Vadim Cherny