Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

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/