Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 10 Oct 2008 at 10:18, JimStinehart AT aol.com wrote:


[snip]
> 2.  I disagree, however, that "Sharon" has anything to do with "song" or "
> rejoice".  That does not make sense for the Plain of Sharon.  Most analysts
> agree that "Sharon" means "plain" or "the level place", as the Sharon Plain 
> is
> a "plain" that is "level".  The logical root word for "Sharon" is thus
> Y$R, meaning "level" or "plain".

Names, in every language, don't necessarily follow any logic.  Pere's example 
of Liverpool
is a good one.  My last name is Washburn, which is an old English term 
meaning "fuller's
stream" even though, until I looked it up further, I had no idea what a 
"fuller" was.  (I thought
it was what I get at an all-you-can-eat buffet.)  You keep referring to "most 
analysts" but the
only ones you've actually cited are Gesenius and Strong, and I already 
addressed  those.
Who else do you have, if anyone?  Here you're likely to run into a problem 
because many of
these "most" are built off each other rather than off actual direct research.

> As is often the case, a -WN suffix is added
> to make Y$R into a geographical place name (which also means, per your 
> analysi
> s, "fulfillment of level").   Usually, though not always (as Karl Randolph
> properly pointed out), H/he is used as a prefix with this name.  H + Y$R + 
> WN.

No, both Pere and Karl pointed out that the  -WN suffix most likely just 
makes the word a
noun.  Hence, if it was built off Y$R, it could just as easily mean "the 
right place."  But it
could just as easily be built off $YR as Pere indicated, meaning "singing" or 
"rejoicing."  You
just keep saying the same thing over and over without offering any further 
evidence.

> But as Dave Washburn and I discussed, there is not a single geographical 
> place
> name in Biblical Hebrew that begins HY$

If you're going to cite me, do it correctly and add what I actually said: 
this little factoid is
meaningless for your argument.  That's even more true now that you have 
admitted to Pere
that you are probably wrong about the -WN suffix denoting "place."

Why is it meaningless?  Because we have a limited corpus of material, and 
there is plenty
that we don't know about the language, the region, and the history, 
especially when it
comes to place names and such.  There may well have been such a "geographical 
place
name" (if we must use the redundancy) that began in such a way and it simply 
hasn't been
preserved.  Or there may not have been, but in terms of your linguistic 
arguments such a
thing has no significance.

The rest of this material, and especially the  speculation about H/X and all 
that, is so lame
that I can't even think of a good way to address it.  I don't mean to sound 
snide, but you're
getting nowhere.  As Karl said, you came her asking for opinions about your 
linguistic
arguments from people who know more about it than you do.  You have gotten 
those
opinions and the reasons behind them.  I suggest you take them to heart and 
realize you're
heading  down a wrong path with this stuff.

As I often tell my kids, if you don't really want to know the answer to a 
question, don't ask it.

I apologize if I crossed a line of civility here.  I'll shut up now and won't 
respond to this topic
any further unless directly challenged.

Dave Washburn
"I'll hold the nail.  And when I nod my head, you hit it with the hammer."