Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Peter Kirk's homonym percentage table

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Peter Kirk's homonym percentage table
  • Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:10:18 +0000

On 16/01/2007 19:47, K Randolph wrote:
...
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?

My study was not on triliteral roots but on triliteral verbs, forms which are actually attested as verbs in the Tanakh. I left out quadriliteral roots because there are too few of them for statistical analysis. As for whether some "hollow" or "double ayin" verbs were in fact originally biliteral, that is a matter of conjecture, but the forms found in the Tanakh are sort of based on the triliteral form.

Of course some of these verbs may be loan words, although generally verbs are less often borrowed than nouns. And the extent of such borrowing may depend strongly on the root letters involved. This will produce some noise in the analysis. Nevertheless Yitzhak has shown a rather good correlation which suggests that this factor is not an important one.

...
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.

According to the method used at Westminster Seminary, these would probably have been counted as homonyms even if their spelling was identical.

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.

Thanks for allowing one. And this is an important case because both verbs are reasonably common. Of course there would be some homonyms even if you were correct that sin and shin were originally the same verb.

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

Y&M is a variant of &YM at Genesis 24:33, 50:26.
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.

I think you were imagining one. Isaiah 19:13 must be N$)W "deceived", not N&)W "lifted up", although there could be a word play here.

#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.

BDB actually splits &BR into two homonyms and suggests both are Aramaic loans. So this is not a good example for the study.

#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.

This is possible I suppose.


--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page