Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<pporta AT oham.net>]

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




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
To: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Simeon"


Jim,

I am afraid that your investigations into the meaning of the names of
the children of Jacob is doomed. You are in fact falling, I believe,
into an etymological trap neatly set up for you by the latter God
fearing editors of the narrative.
It is possible that all these are originally and essentially scared
names of indigenous deities held dear by the foreign born matriarchs
and their maids, and bestowed upon their children. Later editors
defaced the names by the additions of filler consonants and invented
vowels so as to make them sound innately meaningful. The playful and
obviously nonsensical etymologies attached to "explain" the names are
but a subtle message not to take them too seriously.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:12 AM, JimStinehart AT aol.com wrote:

> The name of Jacob’s second son is “Simeon”.  Here is the relevant
> JPS1917
> translation regarding the name “Simeon”:  “And she [Leah] conceived
> again, and
> bore a son;  and said:  'Because the LORD [YHWH] hath heard that I
> am hated,
> He hath therefore given me this son also.'  And she called his name
> Simeon.”
> Genesis 29: 33
>
> In my view, there are four key Hebrew words involved here, as follows:
>
> SHIN/SIN-MEM-ayin:  shama’/“heard”
>
> SHIN/SIN-NUN-aleph:  sana’/“hated”  [At Genesis 29: 33, the form of
> this
> word is SHIN/SIN-NUN-vav-aleph-heh.]
>
> NUN-tav-NUN:  nathan/“given”  [At Genesis 29: 33, the form of this
> word is
> yod-tav-NUN.]
>
> SHIN/SIN-MEM-ayin-vav-NUN:  “Simeon”
>
> There are three key Hebrew true consonants here:  (1) shin/sin, (2)
> mem, and
> (3) nun, in that order.  I myself see three levels of deliberate
> puns here,
> with the second level pun being by far the most important.
[cut]
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew