Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear La Fanga:

Here is a case where there apparently two different roots in Hebrew
that are synonyms: XLL to pierce or bore, such as when making a flute
with a derivative meaning of playing an instrument so produced, and
XLL to make common, both in the sense of bringing into production, and
in the concept that that which is common is the opposite of that which
is set apart, special (the same use in the latter as koinos is used in
Greek as the opposite of hagios).

So which was it, the QDW$ [set apart] verses XL [common, low]
contrast, or the XLL pierced meaning? The context seems to support
either meaning. Most translators that I have read seem to opt for the
pierced meaning.

We don't need to reference Arabic or other cognate languages in this question.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 9/5/07, La Fanga <lafanga144 AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've heard that the word mechalal in Isaiah 53:5 can means pierced based on 
> the Arabic cognate khalal which can mean to pierce/perforate/skewer.  How 
> correct is it to carry over the Arabic meaning of a homonymic word into 
> Hebrew?  I know that Arabic often helps us to understand archaic Hebrew 
> words however I also know that not all words that sound alike are the same. 
> Do the two words derive from the same semitic root so that it can be said 
> they are the same in meaning? I checked an Arabic concordance and while the 
> Arabic khalal can have a myraid of different meanings, the word seems to be 
> used commonly in the sense of spoiling, corrupting, or other degeneration 
> similar to the primary meaning of the Hebrew. So is it linguistically 
> possible for mechalal to mean pierced as some claim? Thanks.