Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

May I suggest that it would be far more profitable if we were to centre our 
discussion on the data 
rather than whose scholar is best. I think most people on this list are not 
impressed much by names 
or bibliography. I have given my reasons for the dates but no primary sources 
which contradict have 
yet been stated. I can only interpret this as a global recognition that there 
is no contradictory 
evidence. Although I eagerly wait to see if there are any (primary) sources 
that do.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Tue Sep 20 14:13:32 2005
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing2.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D057C4C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:13:31 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        4AD131800233
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:13:31 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.49)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 20 Sep 2005 18:13:31 -0000
Received: by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id 24CE14BEB0; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:13:30 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:13:30 -0500
Received: from [71.134.70.61] by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:13:30 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 71.134.70.61
X-Originating-Server: ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20050920181330.24CE14BEB0 AT ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] what words mean
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:13:32 -0000

Joel:

I am a native speaker of American English, and in my 
circles, a "chocoholic" has been used to refer to a person 
who has cravings for chocolate that exceeds merely a 
liking for it. While it may not refer to a physical addiction, it 
refers to one who, like an alcoholic, at least feels a mental 
withdrawal should he fail to get his shot of chocolate.

As how this relates to Biblical Hebrew, it just shows that 
this is a poor example to use to show the weakness of 
referring to root meanings when understanding the 
meanings of derivative lexemes.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
> 
> > "A person whose liking for chocolate is jestingly likened to the
> > alcoholic's addictive craving for alcohol."
> >
> > Context, as I keep telling Vadim, is everything.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> This seemingly off-topic disucssion of what "chocoholic" means is
> actually quite instructive.  Living in an English-speaking country I
> know that when native English speakers say "chocoholic" they mean
> "someone who really likes chocolate."  I know that they *do* *not*
> mean "someone who is addicted to chocolate."
> 
> This agreed-upon usage of a word is what I refer to as "meaning," and
> it is this information about English that lets me understand what
> someone writing or speaking in English is trying to convey.
> 
> Finding a Wikipedia entry that doesn't match how people use the word
> is not helpful.  Deducing what the word doesn't mean from similar
> words is not helpful.  Declaring that everyone who uses the word is
> using it wrong is, IMO, not helpful.  None of these help one
> understand what English speakers are saying.
> 
> The same reasoning applies to ancient Hebrew.  I want to know what
> those ancient words meant.
> 
> I wonder how the many people here whose approaches have led them
> astray regarding a common modern English word will have any chance of
> figuring out what ancient Hebrew words mean.  Similarly, those who
> claim that the English spakers are doing it wrong and misusing
> "chocoholic" will end up with the conclusion that the ancient Hebrew
> authors were doing it wrong, and misusing Hebrew.  If so (though I
> disagree), wouldn't it be nice to know what those authors did mean,
> rather than what they unwittingly wrote in some artificial
> prescriptive Hebrew dialect?
> 
> As with most things (!), Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty (who paid his
> words extra when they had to work harder) said it best:
> 
>        `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
>        tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more
>        nor less.'
> 
>        `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean
>        so many different things.'
> 
>        `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master
>        --- that's all.'
> 
> -Joel Hoffman
>   http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm