Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<tladatsi AT charter.net>]

Peter,

This exchange clearly illustrates my point.  There is a 
sufficiently wide semantic domain in this lexeme to allow 
the author to create amiguity as to which exactly part of 
'DM is meant, hence the basis for punning and irony.


> From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> Date: 2005/09/16 Fri AM 06:56:44 EDT
> To: tladatsi AT charter.net
> CC: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 25:25, Different Lexemes 
& No Puns?
> 
> On 16/09/2005 04:49, tladatsi AT charter.net wrote:
> 
> >Not the same lexeme?
> >
> >The OT is quite clear that the nation of ?DM is supposed 
to 
> >be named after Esau s nickname ?DM (Gen 36:1 and 36:8).  
> >For this to be true, the two words would have to be the 
> >exact same lexeme. ...
> >
> 
> I accept that the country name Edom is the same lexeme, 
the same name, 
> as the personal name Edom.
> 
> >... Esau s nickname was given to him 
> >because he asked his brother for a bowl of ?DM (Gen 
25:30).  
> >There seems no way to me for someone to be named after a 
> >bowl of red stew and that name not being the same lexeme 
as 
> >the red stew. ...
> >
> 
> I am not sure that I accept that a personal name can ever 
be the same 
> lexeme as a common noun (at least when derived in this 
way - the 
> opposite process e.g. "Hoover" is a different matter). 
When a common 
> noun becomes used as a proper noun, I would suggest that 
it becomes a 
> new lexeme - although the concept of lexeme may need to 
be extended to 
> apply to proper nouns at all.
> 
> I note that it is usual practice in dictionaries which 
list proper names 
> to list them as separate entries from common nouns, even 
where their 
> form is identical and their derivational link is clear.
> 
> >... Three of these words are unquestionable the 
> >same lexeme, each being a link in a chain of thing being 
> >named after each other, all of which are red. ...
> >
> 
> Do we actually know that the stew was red, or this simply 
inferred from 
> the Hebrew root?
> 
> >... The only 
> >questionable word is ?DMNY which is universally 
translated 
> >in ancient times and modern as red, reddish, or ruddy 
> >(e.g., LXX purrakhv, Vulg. rufus). ...
> >
> 
> This is certainly a distinct lexeme, formed from 'DM and 
a derivational 
> suffix. You are misunderstanding the concept of lexeme by 
even 
> suggesting the possibility that this is the same lexeme.
> 
> -- 
> 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: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release 
Date: 15/09/2005
> 

Jack Tladatsi