Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Pere,

Of course we all “know” [more or less] what XALAH means by context and 
universal experience, yet you did not tell me what it means. Unfortunately, 
all you give me is translation --- the replacement of one vague word in 
Hebrew by two ambiguous and doubtful words in English. Without precise 
knowledge, you will agree with me, there can be no meaningful discussion of 
the semantic affinity of GALAH and XALAH. We need to understand, or try to 
understand what the ancient Hebrews concretely meant by saying that someone 
is XOLEH. To see more on the equivalence of GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL see my 
posting from September 6, 2007.

What I mean by the ‘equivalence’ of D, Z, T, Y, S, C, $, T is that they are 
all ‘essentially equal’. If you replace in a Hebrew root say D by, say, C, 
then you get a new root of the same “family”, or same basics meaning as the 
original. Since we are not dealing here with sharp and clearly delineated 
mathematical objects the meaning of ‘equal’, ‘close’, ‘same’, and so on must 
be understood in the more general sense of agreement and understanding.

Examples do it all. Take for example 1 Kings 5:22-23

וַיִּשְׁלַח חִירָם, אֶל-שְׁלֹמֹה לֵאמֹר שָׁמַעְתִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַחְתָּ 
אֵלָי אֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה אֶת-כָּל-חֶפְצְךָ בַּעֲצֵי אֲרָזִים וּבַעֲצֵי 
בְרוֹשִׁים עֲבָדַי יֹרִדוּ מִן-הַלְּבָנוֹן יָמָּה וַאֲנִי אֲשִׂימֵם 
דֹּבְרוֹת בַּיָּם עַד-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-תִּשְׁלַח אֵלַי וְנִפַּצְתִּים שָׁם 
וְאַתָּה תִשָּׂא

How did the ancient Hebrews [or for that matter, I as a boy of tender age] 
know what the rare word DOBR-AH means, even if they had possibly never heard 
it before? First, King Solomon was a wise and practical man [as are we] who 
understood the logistics of transporting several hundred large tree trunks 
from the Lebanon to Jerusalem, and would have done the same inventive and 
sensible thing Xiram proposed to do. But he had also a keen, discerning, and 
sensitive ear, not spoiled yet by dictionaries and the like, to the language 
and could understand right away the choice of this, possibly Canaanite, word 
DOBRA-AH. His intuition told him within a microsecond of the equivalence of

DOBRA-AH, ZOBRA-AH, TOBRA-AH, YOBRA-AH, SOBRA-AH, COBRA-AH, $OBRA-AH, 
TOBRA-AH

Then his mind picked out TOBRA-AH, [recall TABUR of Judges 9:37], COBRA-AH 
[recall CIBUR, ‘heap’ of 2 Kings 10:8], $OBR-AH [recall the two SEBER of 
Isaiah 30:14 and Genesis 42:1], TOBR-AH [recall the mountain name TABOR of 
Psalms 89:13], and he got it right away that DOBRA-AH is a pile [COBRA-AH 
CBUR-AH or TOBR-AH TBUR-AH of $OBR-AH $BUR-AH] of floating tree trunks.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <pporta AT oham.net>
To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH


> Pere,
> I will give you a detailed answer, but first explain to me (no traslations
> and no converses please!) what you think XALAH, 'ill', means.
>
> __________
>
> We should study in detail the 75 issues in the Bible where verb XALAH 
> appears (in all forms and conjugations).
> But taking as a model 1K 17:17, where a boy XALAH and ... died, I think 
> XALAH means (in qal) "to be weak, sick", as we read in dictionaries.
> Now, I think all of us know (either in theory or in practice) what "to be 
> weak, sick" means: so no need of explanations on this...
>
> Pere Porta
>
>
>
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston university
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <pporta AT oham.net>
> To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
> Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
>
>
> > It is my understanding that this grouping is governed
> > by the equivalence of
> >
> > B, P, W
> >
> > G, H, X, K, Q
> >
> > D, Z, T, Y, S, C $, T
> >
> > L
> >
> > M
> >
> > N
> >
> > R
> >
> > ________
> >
> > I think you should explain what does "equivalence" mean within your 
> > theory.
> >
> > For instance:
> >
> > 1. Does it mean that two words that differ only by one letter must have a 
> > similar meaning if this different letter is one of the group you have 
> > created? (Let us say GALAH, to uncover, and XALAH, to be sick)
> > 2. Does "equivalence" mean that words having one of these letters of the 
> > group as one of their root letters can be dealt -or must be-  with 
> > according to some given rules that apply to all words of this type?
> > 3. Summing up: what does "equivalence" mean in your theory?
> > Please, give your answer up without forgetting some illustrating examples 
> > too.
> >
> > Pere Porta
> > Barcelona (Spain)
> > _________
> >
> >
> > with each letter being actually a single consonant root, in particular L
> > indicating elevation. By this hypothesis the root SLH [H here is just a
> > filler] is a variant of the roots DLH, *ZLH, TLH, *YLH, SLH, CLH, $LH, 
> > TLH,
> > where * indicates a potential root not in use. All these roots 
> > essentially
> > and inherently mean ‘pull up, pull out, draw up, draw out, extract’. 
> > Hence a
> > sensible translation of the Psalms verse is ‘you pulled out all those
> > deviating from your laws’.
> >
> > Now we understand also the relationship between the biblical SILON, 
> > ‘thorn’,
> > and the modern SILON, ‘jet’, as in MA-TOS SILON.
> >
> > DELET, door’, is methinks but a TELET, a hanging flap over the entrance.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <pporta AT oham.net>
> > To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
> > Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
> >
> >
> > > > I will give you a detailed response, but first explain to me this. 
> > > > SALITA of Psalms 119:118 is translated by the NAB as 'reject', [the KJV 
> > > > has it as 'trodden down']. Is this translation correct, and if yes how 
> > > > do we know it to be so?
> > >
> > > Isaac,
> > >
> > > you are putting a question here which is difficult to answer to. Mainly, 
> > > to my sense, because Ps 119:118 is the only place where this verb SALAH 
> > > appears in the Bible (in qal) (the word T:SWLEH in Job 28:16 comes from 
> > > another quite different SALAH)
> > > We can often be accurate as regards the "exact" translation of a given 
> > > word because we can verify the different meanings or shades of meaning 
> > > this word got in other places of the bible (mainly in the same book we 
> > > are dealing with... )
> > > But here it is not so.
> > > The dictionary (my dictionary) meaning of SALAH (in qal) is "to make 
> > > light of", "toss aside". If this meaning is right (or if these meanings 
> > > are right), both translations you mention are (would be) wrong... 
> > > because either "reject" or "tread down" are concepts that differ from 
> > > "to make light of" and from "toss aside".
> > > One must too take into account the meaning or sense of the preceding 
> > > verses (117, 116, 115...) or even of the whose psalm (which verses I 
> > > have not read nor the psalm...): I feel this can also help to fix the 
> > > right translation of SALAH in Ps 119:118 but, of course, it is not sure 
> > > it will help.
> > >
> > > I think this is all I can say as a replaying to your question.
> > >
> > > Pere Porta
> > > Barcelona (Spain)
> > [cut]
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________
> >
> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com