Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:37 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> So what do you think Karl? Do you think the verses you quoted with the
> sense of pouring have some common meaning with what you have proposed? Or do
> you think they can be reduced to a homograph with variant pronunciation when
> vowels are added?


Yes I think the verses that have the meaning of “pouring” do have common
meaning. The reasons for such are:

In looking at the binyanim, I see them as having lexical import as modifiers
of action. Qal is a simple active, Niphal a simple passive, Piel a stative
verb with Pual its passive, Hiphil a causative with Hophal its passive, with
Hitpoel a reflexive onto the subject. Those are the most common. I have
found time and time again that when I pay attention to the binyanim that
what often appears to be different actions often show a commonality of
action.

Translation is not meaning. All translation is to a certain amount a
paraphrase, all of it, because different languages do not have exact
equivelants. Right now, I understand $WQ as referring to being out (and
about) but to say in English that a press causes oil or must to be out does
not communicate in English. Though it does in Hebrew. “Pouring” is a
paraphrase, but it communicates in English. Further, it is the result of a
press causing the fluids to be out.

While I can’t 100% rule out a homograph, the commonality of action as
modified by the binyanim seem to point to a commonality of lexical origin.

>
>
> It's a little frustrating and disappointing that the claimant that these
> are homonyms hasn't come back with the relevant cognate evidence. That could
> have been interesting to look at.


It would have been interesting.

>
>
> James Christian
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.