Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

The root $Q like the root SG means elevated.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Ishinan wrote:

> Karl W. Randolph. wrote:
>
> To All: Recently I went through an exercise in lexicography, so I  
> thought I'd share what I did.
>
> As I was reading through Proverbs 28:15 for the nth time, reading  
> DB $WQQ, I finally said "This is enough! This doesn't really mean  
> that." What I referred to was the term $WQQ, which can be either  
> from $WQ or $QQ. Yet when I looked at dictionaries, both terms seem  
> to have almost the same meaning, centering around pouring out.
>
> The first step was to research bears a bit. What I found out is  
> that bears spend almost all their time either sleeping or foraging  
> for food. And when they are foraging for food, watch out! They are  
> dangerous. That little human may just be that tasty treat that  
> helps get enough energy to wake up after hibernation. Now I don't  
> know about ancient Israeli bears, but if they were anything like  
> northern European bears, humans were considered fair game. The  
> picture I got from the verse is of a bear padding about, looking  
> for food.
>
> Notice, I am not looking at the bear as a subject, but as an actor,  
> concentrating on his actions.
>
> The next step was to look up $WQ and $QQ in a concordance. Under  
> $WQ, I found Joel 2:24 and 4:13, both in the Hiphil where wine/oil  
> presses cause the fluids to come out. Hence the idea of pouring  
> listed above.
>
> All the other uses which from form appear to be Qal, Piel or Pilel  
> were of people, locusts and other legged creatures. The contexts  
> indicate that these subjects were out and about, usually for the  
> purpose of acquisition, such as through purchase, foraging and/or  
> looting.
>
> Looking at one derivative, $WQ meaning city street lined with shops  
> and stalls, I get a picture of people wandering around the stores  
> getting their supplies. Again the idea of being out and about.
>
> So the final conclusion I draw is that the verb refers to being  
> out, usually for the purpose of acquiring stuff.
>
> Previously I had not listed $WQ "shin (leg)" as a derivative of the  
> same root as the verb $WQ, because I could not see the meaning  
> connection between "pour" and "shin". The connection of a shared  
> form is not enough to show a shared etymology, at least not in my  
> mind. I need to see a meaning connection as well. But now, when I  
> see a verbal use indicating creatures with legs being out and  
> about, i.e. "legging around", now I see a meaning connection as  
> well. Only now am I able to recognize an etymological
> connection as well.
>
> In closing, my revised dictionary listing now says:
>
>
> ???? to be out, often for the purpose to acquire stuff, through  
> foraging, purchase or looting ? ???? being out and about ? being  
> all over the place (like locusts in a field) Is 33:4 ??, ????, ???  
> shin (bone) (? the idea of being out, walking around "legging  
> about"), an animal's right rear leg given as part of a feast to  
> show honor, ???? ?? ??? idiom, meaning "dead", for people who lie  
> with their legs so twisted can only be dead, it is very  
> uncomfortable for the living, ???? city street lined with stalls  
> and stores ? market where people are out and about among the sales  
> stalls and stores to acquire stuff
>
> (I hope all the symbols come through.)
>
> Since I just went over this definition during this week, the steps  
> are still fresh in my mind and I thought it might be of interest to  
> others just where I get my definitions from. Most of the times,  
> however, I have no problem with the dictionary meanings I found in  
> other dictionaries, so I use those.
>
> What do you all think?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----------------------
>
>
>
> Ishinan:  My suggestion is to apply the comparative method among  
> other daughter Semitic languages (such as Akkadian, Ugaritic,  
> Arabic,  Ge?ez, etc.) to your examples.  Consult the respective  
> Proto-Semitic etymologies.  You'll actually discover that the   
> examples you gave above are homonyms.
>
> I have found that sometimes the entries in Strong's Exhaustive  
> Concordance of the Bible can be misleading.
>
> For example:
>
> 7783 shuwq  overflow, water.
> 7784 shuwq shook street.
> 7785 showq shoke the (lower) leg/shin.
>
> These are not related. Hope this helps.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ishinan B. Ishibashi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew