Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 02/02/2005 16:12, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> ...
>
> As for the mentioned words in which you expressed interest:
> Shablul - from bll (mix fluids) but also in Arabic (made wet) and
> in Akkadian (sprayed).  Various translations read it as snail, worm,
> wax, etc, but all are valid for this etymology.
>
> Sheqa(rurot - Gesenius in 1815 already read it as a Shafel from
> q(r (bottom of pit), which has similar meanings in Syriac, Arabic,
> and Sokort (sp?)
>
> Soggin calls the above isolated words for which no conclusion
> can be made regarding their character.
>  

The easiest explanation of these words is that they are loans into 
Hebrew from Akkadian etc, i.e. from languages which had a Shafel form. 
So they are not evidence that Hebrew itself ever had a Shafel form.

> Finally, we should mention Hishtah.awwah, which in Ugaritic is
> a Shafel form, so there the connection with Shafel is much
> clearer  (And yet, the presence of the Hi- prefix suggests it is
> used as a quadratic root $-h.-w-w in Hitapel form, I guess).
>
>  
It is possible here than an original Shafel $XWW form in another Semitic 
language was borrowed into Hebrew and reinterpreted as a quadriliteral. 
This kind of reinterpretation of loan words as quadriliteral verbal 
roots is well attested at least in Arabic, I'm not sure about Hebrew but 
TRGM may be an example which has spread between Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.6 - Release Date: 27/01/2005