Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On 1/16/07, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an OFFLIST message.  I don't mind if you reply on list.  I will
> probably want to be able to relate to your results on list in any case.
In this case, I think the response will be of interest to the whole
community. But it also reflects on my part an unfinished work.

> On 1/15/07, K Randolph wrote:
>
> > If English were spelled phonetically, "tu" would be used where we now
> > use "to", "too" and "two". Those are homonyms, words with the same
> > sound but different meanings.
>
> I know what homonyms are.

Sorry, but I have learned through experience not to assume that you
know anything.

> ...Now, may I ask you to go over the list of
> 31 pairs of roots that Peter listed that have either Shin or Sin, and tell me
> how many are pairs of homonyms in your opinion and which they are?
>
> Here is the list: (deleted for space)

You are asking something here that is beyond Peter's study, and for
which Peter is not answerable to.

This comes down to lexicographic method, how one defines words.

In the West, the basis for definitions is form. Even actions are
defined b the form of the action, the place where it takes place and
the subject and/or object that is affected by the action.

The newer practice of looking at semantic domains still appears to be
defining according to modern, Western practices of defining by form.

After reading Tanakh through several times, I came to the conclusion
that the modern, Western style of lexicography is the wrong approach
to take when trying to understand ancient, Middle-Eastern Hebrew
language. Here you need to look at the action, both physical and
implied, to understand what a word refers to. The same action can
often be applied in widely varying contexts and to differing objects,
which give the appearance of different forms though the same action.
In short, while the Western lexicography emphasizes form over
function, the ancient Hebrew understanding emphasizes function over
form.

One result of looking at words according to function rather than form
is that I recognize only about one third the number of homonyms that
Peter listed in his study, according to spot checks that I have done
so far. Even so, it appears that ancient Hebrew had a higher
percentage of its words as homonyms than found in modern English, for
example. To be fair to Peter, he got his list from another source, it
is not something that he made up.

Another difference, Peter's study was only on triliteral roots. I am
not convinced that every noun, adjective and so forth can be connected
to a triliteral root. Many dictionaries list many "verbal roots" that
are not found in Tanakh as verbs: how many of those are connected with
loan words from other languages?

It is true that a person usually does not see that except what he is
prepared to see. Because I started with the presupposition that the
sin and shin were separate letters, I was not prepared to look for and
find semantic links, and so of course I didn't. To do justice to your
question, I would have to revisit most of the words on the list, which
could possibly take months.

Now to give some specific examples:

XP# refers to the action of taking from confinement to an open space.
When searching through a trunk, objects are taken out to see what is
underneath them. In this context, the action is spelled with a sin.
But when that action of taking a man out of the confinement of slavery
to the openness of freedom, the same action figuratively applied, it
is spelled with a shin. Notice how the modern, Western defining
according to form sees in these two different contexts two different
forms, but a defining according to action sees only one action applied
to two different contexts.

X#K I don't see an action that connects to hold back from performing
an action, and to become dark or obscure, so this appears to be a true
homonym.

Y#M I list only one root, used only once as a verb.

N#) is one of the words that caused me puzzlement from the first, as
the contexts of the use with a shin seem to indicate a figurative
lifting up of the people with false promises as in flattery. It caused
me puzzlement because I was not prepared to see a semantic link, and I
was seeing one.

#BR is a true homonym, with one root referring to breaking apart
usually by smashing to the ground. The second root is spelled
sometimes with a sin and sometimes with a shin, with the idea of
looking for provision and the hope of getting it.

#DD refers to the action of tearing up and pushing over. When the
object of that tearing up and pushing over is dirt, it is called
"plowing" and spelled with a sin. But when the object is castles or
cities, it is called treating violently and is spelled with a shin.

Now that I am prepared to see a semantic link, I should go back and
make a careful re-evaluation of most of those words on the list. Are
there semantic links based on actions? How many are true homonyms?
Right now I cannot answer that.

Karl W. Randolph.