Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Simeon"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <pporta AT oham.net>
  • To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • Cc: b-hebrew Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Simeon"
  • Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 06:57:29 +0100


1. I write all my mail [on a Mac G4] in Helvetica size 12. I think the
problem lies in your [mine?] mail settings, or possibly in the b-Hebrew
transmission. In fact, your last list appears on my screen half in tiny
letters [size 9?], until paragraph 4, at which point it reverts to size 12,
methinks.



Isaac,

till very recently (say one week) the letter size of your mails displayed
quite normal on my screen. I changed nothing in my mail settings... Did you
change anything in yours?

Pere
2. I am sorry that I have to disagree with you but I detect no distinction
whatsoever between RA(AB and R(ABON [as between KE$EL and KI$ALON]. They are
both rendered into English as 'famine'. I fail to see how R(ABON, 'hunger',
is the "fulfilment" of RA(AB, 'hunger'.

3. I am not interested in the etymological investigation of the name
$IM(ON. The ON in $IM(ON means nothing to me. Proper names need not be words.
Mention of the name just recalled to our minds the "suffix" -ON in Hebrew
nouns.

4. I brought the example of RA(AD (Ex 15:15) - R(ADAH (Isa 33:14) because
it is entirely analogous to RA(AB - R(ABON, except that the "suffix" here is
-AH instead of -ON. In fact, the NAB translates both RA(AD and R(ADAH as
'trembling', as it translates both RA(AB and R(ABON as 'famine'. Now, R(ADAH
is "feminine" by default not by design, it is not the -AH that merely turns
PAR, 'bull' into PARAH, 'cow, PAR-she'. I know that the feminine marker -AH =
HI) is still used now for the sake of semantic cleavage as in YAM, 'sea',
YAMAH [pronounced yamAH, as opposed to YAMah, 'westward'], 'lake'.

5. I can hardly relate to the word "fulfilment" in this context, even
though I have an inkling as to what you mean by it.

6. What I am saying is actually so simple and obvious [at least to me] that
you may be overlooking it, searching in it some deeper meaning. Let's take
RA(AD - R(ADAH first as they are of a more concrete nature. The progenitor of
these words is the root R(D. It is of great generality and constitutes the
genetic semantic nucleus so to speak of all the words derived from it. By
adding A-A we obtain the pronounceable RA(AD. With a qamatz-patax and a
stress on the second syllable it is 'trembled', but with a patax-patax and a
stress on the first syllable [as I pronounce it] it is 'trembling'. But this
situation is wanting in clarity. We want to say "it is a thing having the
property embodied in the root R(D". So we say shortly R(AD HI), with HI)
identifying the thing, namely the state of trembling, ---> R(AD-AH. The same
is true for -ON and -UT, etc..

7. Of course, we know to distinguish between R(AD-AH, 'trembling,
R(AD-it-is' and RA(AD-AH, 'RA(AD-she, she trembled'. We know also that
RA(AD-U is 'they trembled, tremble-U', and that TI-R(AD is 'you [will]
tremble, TI-tremble'. etc.

8. I may take up your suggestion.




Isaac Fried, Boston University



On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:16 PM, <pporta AT oham.net> <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:


Isaac,

First, would you be so kind to make the fonts of a part of the mails you
send display in a greater size on my screen? I feel the letter body is too
small, even if your intention at doing so is to differentiate the authoring
of mails.

Then,

1. R(ABON (Psa 37:19), famine, time of hunger, is indeed the fulfilment
or RA(AB, hunger. It means hunger (otherwise a somewhat theoretical concept,
mainly if one can eat so much as he wants to...) has been or become real,
true, really felt by people.

2. The difference between RA(AD (Ex 15:15) and R(ADAH (Isa 33:14) has, to
my sense, nothing to do with the issue posted by Jim. These are two versions
of the same: one is masculine and the second is feminine. They mean the same.
This is a phaenomenon we find in most languages. Surely there are some cases
in English.

3. What you write on suffixes (-ON, -IT, -N)... has nothing to do with
the issue now in discussion...
4. And finally. You write:
It is my understanding that what you mean in "the fulfilment of the key
concept of the word they come from" is that it turns a root into a noun or a
"thing".



Yes, it is so.



and you write as well:



If so, then you are near agreeing with me that it is a (compound)
personal pronoun.



You should explain with the greatest detail this assertion, Isaac.

People on this list -me included-- do not understand this!



The final -ON in Shim'on is a (compound) personal pronoun? Please,
explain this in such a manner that all of us become able to understand it!



If you were able to make the listers of b-hebrew understand what you mean
by these words then this ambiance or feeling of opposition against your
theory --I think the opposition is against your theory and not against your
person- would become much lesser!



Perhaps it would be good you give your explanation not in an only mail
but acting by steps: distributing your answer into two or three -or even
four- mails along...

You must agree that if people do not understand your theory... then
people see most of your mails as a hindrance rather than to be welcome...



I heartly suggest you to do so!



Pere Porta

Barcelona (Spain)





----- Original Message -----
From: Isaac Fried
To: <pporta AT oham.net>
Cc: b-hebrew Hebrew
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Simeon"


Pere,




You are saying:




"The end syllable -ON is a quite usual end in biblical Hebrew and in
today

Israeli Hebrew as well. It is that of several masculine nouns that
usually
mean the fulfilment of the key concept of the word they come from."


But, do you find any difference between RA(AB, 'hunger', as say in
Genesis 12:10, and R(AB-ON of Psalms 37:19? Or for that matter, RA(AD,
'trembling', of Exodus 15:15 and R(ADAH of Isaiah 33:14?
It is my understanding that what you mean in "the fulfilment of the key
concept of the word they come from" is that it turns a root into a noun or a
"thing". If so, then you are near agreeing with me that it is a (compound)
personal pronoun.

in spoken Hebrew the "suffix" -ON is also occasionally used to suggest
lesser size, for example GAG, 'roof', GAGON, 'a roofling, a rack', as over
the entrance to the house or the car port. Also the "suffix" -IT [in my
opinion the compound HI)-AT. Females are smaller than males?] is occasionally
used for this purpose, for instance, KOS, 'drinking glass', KOS-IT, 'small
liquor glass', as in We lifted a KOSIT for the new year.

The "suffix" -AN is reference to an agent [as the English -er is] as in
GAN-AN, 'gardner'.




Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Dec 7, 2007, at 12:36 AM, <pporta AT oham.net> <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:


Dear Jim,


With a quite constructive mind and with no intention of denying you
may be
right in some sense, I would argue this against your analysis:


1. The word "Shim'on" lacks the aleph of "sana'", to hate. It
consists only
of the very consonants of "shama'", to hear, plus a final -ON.
If you theory is true and sure... should not this aleph be part of
the name
"Shim'on"?


2. The end syllable -ON is a quite usual end in biblical Hebrew and
in today
Israeli Hebrew as well. It is that of several masculine nouns that
usually
mean the fulfilment of the key concept of the word they come from. In
no way
I see it is the N of "saNa'", to hate
_________


Now, in a little more detail:


About 1. How do you explain that the aleph of "sana'", to hate, does
not
appear in the name "Shim'on"?
About 2.
a. YitrON, profit, outcome (Ecc 2:11), of "yatar" (this form not
found in
the Bible but many other forms of this verb are found...), to remain
over.
b. (K')pitrON, (as) interpretation (Gn 40:5), of "patar" (Gn 40:22),
to
interpret
c. (w')xesrON, (and) lacking (Ecc 1:15), of "xaser", to lack (1Ki
17:16)
d. zikarON, memorial (Ex 17:14), of "zakhar", to remember (Ec 9:15)
And in modern Hebrew:
e. shiltON, government
f. gizrON, etimology
g. kisharON, skill....
h. and....... many others.


What can you say as a replay to these main two points that defy your
analysis?


Pere Porta
Barcelona (Spain)


Most of this clever Hebrew wordplay is missed if one simply says,
as do
the
scholarly books I have consulted, that “Simeon” is a play on the
word
shama’/“
heard”. Yes, that is in part true, but it misses the most exciting
aspects
of what the author is doing with the name “Simeon” here.
S-M-N/“Simeon”
reflects both S-M/shama’/“heard” and S-N/sana’/“hated”. S-M + S-N
=
S-M-N.
The word “heard”, standing alone, tells us almost nothing about
Simeon.
But
the words “heard, hated” deftly summarize Simeon’s future life.
Simeon
HEARD
that his full-sister Dinah had been with young Shechem, and Simeon
HATED
the
men of Shechem for that. Simeon HEARD Joseph’s dreams, which
seemed to
foretell
that Joseph would rule over his older half-brothers, and Simeon
HATED
Joseph
for that. In both cases, it is precisely Simeon who is the
ringleader in
killing the men of Shechem, and in almost murdering young Joseph.
“Heard,
hated.”


As we are beginning to see, the sophisticated multiple puns on the
names
of
Jacob’s 12 sons deftly foreshadow what these sons then do in the
rest of
the
text.


The key here is to focus on the true Hebrew consonants, and the
precise
order
of these key consonants. It is also important to realize that
sometimes
similar, rather than identical, consonants are used in the punning
done by
the
author of the Patriarchal narratives.


To view “Simeon” as merely being a play on the word shama’/“heard”,
nothing
else, is to miss much of the brilliant Hebrew wordplay in the
Patriarchal
narratives. ShaMa’ + SaNa’ = SiMeoN. S-M + S-N = S-M-N. It’s
right
there, if
we will simply look at the key consonants that appear, and the
precise
order
in which they appear, in the text of Genesis 29: 33. That’s the
way the
author
of the Patriarchal narratives does puns. It’s a vital key to
understanding
what the author is trying to tell us in the Patriarchal narratives.


Jim Stinehart




_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew











Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page