Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter:

On 1/16/07, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:
> On 16/01/2007 19:47, K Randolph wrote:
> > ...
> > Another difference, Peter's study was only on triliteral roots. ...
> >
> >
> My study was not on triliteral roots but on triliteral verbs, forms
> which are actually attested as verbs in the Tanakh....
Sorry for the misrepresentation.

> ...
> > Now to give some specific examples:
> >
> > XP# refers to the action ...
> >
> According to the method used at Westminster Seminary, these would
> probably have been counted as homonyms even if their spelling was identical.
That's exactly what I mean by differences in methodology.

> > 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.

I think the Masoretes were more interested in preserving as accurately
as possible the tradition as they received it, than in satisfying the
dictates of modern grammarians and lexicographers, coupled with the
fact that there were transmission errors and we don't know the
language as well as we think we know. This is clearly an unusual
spelling for &YM, not a new root.

Having said this, there are examples where the only evidence (apart
from context) of certain roots are the Masoretic points, and without
those points the context and meaning may indicate a different root.

Today we forget that for most of history, spelling has been rather
fluid. For example, Merriweather Lewis of the Lewis and Clark
expedition once referred to the big, furry, growly animal (bear) using
three different spellings in one sentence, and 200 years ago that was
not considered abnormal.

> > 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.
Ah no, not just one use, but to the meanings.

> > #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.
This suggests that not only methodology, but ideology may play a part
in recognizing the meanings of words.

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