Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Human Sacrifice - Semantic Domain

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
  • To: <kwrandolph AT email.com>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Human Sacrifice - Semantic Domain
  • Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:42:05 -0400

It is my own fault for having commented on a topic that has both many
technical aspects and is highly contraversial without access to my usual
refernece materials. My house is being painted and I writing from a coffee
shop.

The term semantic domain of course is a metaphor, derived from the feudal
term domain (dominus = lord), the geographical territory controlled by a
lord. The political domain had a capital (core) and borders (periphery). The
borders of a feudal domain of course could change due to through the
acquisition of new territory, either existing feual lands of another lord or
through feudalization of non-feudal lands. Lose of lands can occur as well.

I find it useful to extend this metaphor to semantics. A semantic domain has
a core concept, for example to kill a domesticated aminal - to slaughter in
English. When domesticated animals are killed, they are usually easy to
find, are killed in close quarters, and there is rarely much of fight put up
(pigs are something on an exception). This is why there is usually a separate
lexeme for killing wild animals since they must be found, they can put up
much more of a fight, and as a result are usually killed from a distance.

The domain of slaughter however can be expanded to the killing of people,
either when those dying are unarmed and are unable to resist, soldlers kiling
civilians for example, or when those dying, even if armed and capable of
resistence, are dying in such a way that they may as well be unarmed. These
people are dying as if they were domesticated animals.

The domain might be extended even further to conflicts between people where
no one actually dies, but the conflict is so one sided, that it had lives
been on the line, it would have seemed like the passive death of a sheep.
Sporting events or elections come to mind ("They got slaughtered.")

The core concept of the domain is an easy, passive death (viewed from the
slaughterer's perspective of course) of a domesticated animal, the capital of
the domain. The borders include non-domesticated animals (including
people)that die as if they were domesticated animals and situations where
difficult opposition would be expected but fails to materialize resulting in
one-sided outcome. Where one is in this wide semantic domain is determined
by what the neighboring semantic domain are, i.e. the context.

XRM could have grown the same way. I would think that originally it applied
to ritual events were domesticated animals were slaughtered, butchered, and
burnt beyond the point where they might be consumed by humans (and by
extention only consumed by God). The animals was made inaccessable to the
owner (given-up) and accessable to only to God (given to). This core concept
might be extended to non-dietary objects that are given up by the owner and
given to God, although not physically destroyed although perhaps
metaphorically. The semantic domain could also be extended to military
conflicts that differed from the normal fighting between warriors (who can
put up a fight) to military conflicts where civilians (who are not expected
to be able to defend themselves) are also targeted, resulting in the complete
eradication of the opposing party. That this eradication might have divine
sanction only makes the link to the core conept stronger. I think the Isaiah
citation is an eve!
n greater extention of the borders.




Jack Tladatsi



  • [b-hebrew] Human Sacrifice - Semantic Domain, tladatsi, 10/22/2005

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page