Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> vayyixtov Karl
> >> Speculation. Indicated by the term “probability”.>
>
> Speculation?
> Maybe we could communicate better in biblical Hebrew. probability is
> based on evidence and in this case by an intersecting of three
> probabilities
> for any word deemed 'highly probably Late Biblical Hebrew". The low side
> of this probability gets diminished with each similar patterning word with
> which it is joined. One stick may be breakable, ten sticks become very
> difficult to break. Thirty sticks become like an iron rod. Speculation
> would
> be to ignore the reinforcing confluence of pattern and to posit, to
> speculate, that somehow in a parallel universe it is all irrelevant.
>
> You gave the Hurvitz three tests, and the use of ZMN fails all three.

We do not have proof that the word was unknown in First Temple times. All we
have is that it is used only once in a First Temple document. When a
document as short as the Gezar Calendar can have a common term not found in
Bible, how many other terms, including some found written only in Second
Temple writings, were used during the First Temple period? Therefore, the
first test fails.

The second test indicates that a cognate term was used in cognate languages
during the First Temple period, hence the second test also fails.

The third test, does it replace the use of another term, in the same manner
as the French “boeuf” replace the Anglo-Saxon “cow” when served on the
French speaking lord’s table? Again, no, as it has a distinct meaning
different from any other known Biblical Hebrew term.

Conclusion, it fails all three tests.


> >This is especially relevant in that ZMN has a semantic
> field not shared by any other Hebrew term, unlike your sheep = mouton
> example above, so it cannot be used as a replacement for another
> (“earlier”)
> term.>
> >
> >You have not come to grips with the fact that it has a different meaning
> than your earlier examples, in fact was even used as a modifier to one of
> your examples, Therefore it is not a replacement for “earlier”
> terminology.>
> >
>
> Maybe you have not come to grips with the fact that zeman remained in
> the language along with `et and mo`ed,


This is one of my evidences for the fact that ZMN has a different meaning
than either (T or MW(D, therefore there was no problem for all three terms
to coexist in the language.


> causing a semantic field adjustment.
> You will note that mouton caused a meaning adjustment in English, it does
> not mean 'sheep' but 'sheep flesh as food'. It entered with the Normans and
> metamorphicized.
>
> The adjectival use modifying (T indicates that its noun use is slightly
different than the root used as an adjective. In adjectival use it modifies
time, as a noun it includes the idea of time, but a specific idea concerning
time.


> and you analysis is poor and unreliable.
> It shows an etymoloigical fallacy as if a word's meaning is it root.
>
> When working as a lexicographer on a language where the evidence is as
spare as Tanakh, one needs to look at all evidence, including words from the
same root and how the different uses affect the meanings of the derivatives,
in order to understand its meaning. This is not the same as the etymological
fallacy.


> >MW(D is from the same root as Y(D meaning *to convoke, call out to a
> meeting
> * so as a noun it has almost the same meaning as εκκλησια in Greek.>
>
> This is not lexicography but etymology and leads to faulty comparisons.
> totally unreliable.
> mo`ed is a time word. You will find the LXX translates with a word like
> KAIROS 'specific time' and others.
> While EKKLHSIA is word closer to qahal and `eda in Hebrew.
>
> While the LXX is useful to try to help understand Biblical Hebrew, it also
shows that many terms were forgotten or only imperfectly understood by the
time the LXX was written. Secondly LXX is a translation, and is only as good
as the people who made it. As such, the LXX is a bruised reed that can break
if you trust it too much.


> On zeman, Eccl 3:1 is an example showing how much `et and zeman
> overlap. there is a short parallelism:
> la-kol zeman  'for everything there is a time'
> ve-`et le-xol Hefets 'and a time for every item'
> taHat ha-shamayim
> zeman covers all of the `ittim that follow
>
> That’s the definition of synonym, that there is an overlap of meaning.
Sometimes that overlap is complete, such as “glimpse” is a subset of “see”.
And while “time” includes the idea of “appointed time”, if one wants to be
specific that appointed or set time is meant, then use the term that has
that specific meaning.


> In Neh 2:6 uses zeman for a length of time for a trip to be made.
>

Look at the context. This is indicating the specific time of his return, not
the length of time he would be gone. Of course the length of time could be
deduced from the appointed time of his return.


> In Esth 9:27 and 31 use zeman as a tight synonym to Hebrew mo`ed.
>
> But still recognizably different, so as not to cause confusion (unless one
is predisposed to be confused).


> I would conclude that zeman is a word that covers mo`ed and is wider,
> more generic, so as to reach to include `et. (Of course, in principle
> one should
> trace how the word continued to be used throughout the history of the
> language. 4 biblical ocurrences are not a lot of examples.)
> This analysis receives some confirmation
> in Daniel and Ezra where the idiom beh-zimna "at that time, in the very
> hour"
> is common in Aramaic for these authors. And as a word that is equivalent
> and
> more generic than mo`ed, its lack in First Temple Hebrew is quite
> remarkable.
> You may scoff, but many of the places in torah where we have mo`ed or
> pa`am or a time phrase in Hebrew we find zeman in Onkelos. This is not
> proof
> but is supportive of the overall picture.
>
> This paragraph covers a few ideas, so I’ll break them down.

The basic idea of MW(D is to have a meeting, whether intimate as a
tête-à-tête or more intimate, or a public meeting as a national celebration.
It has a broader meaning than English “convoke” in that it includes the idea
of scheduling that meeting. In other words, this is a scheduled meeting, not
a chance encounter.

The use of cognate languages is to be taken with extreme care. While often
words will have similar to the same meanings, *similar* can be off far
enough to cause misunderstanding. That is not counting where what appear to
be the same word can have very different meanings, e.g. $KX in Aramaic and
Hebrew have almost opposite meanings.

You have yet to establish that the word was lacking during the First Temple
period. And if Qohelet was from the pen of Solomon, this is evidence that it
was used during the First Temple period.

As far as Onkelos is concerned, are you not talking about a cognate
language, where the term had a different though similar meaning as Hebrew?
See two paragraphs above. Secondly, we are talking about a time long after
Hebrew ceased to be a mother-tongue.


> >Ps: Just out of curiosity, what does “vayyixtov” mean? Why don’t you write
> it in Biblical Hebrew?>
>
> I really don't know how to answer this question. A language does not depend
> on a script. vayyixtov is biblical Hebrew, written in a latin-
> based script.
> Here in BH, 'v' can be sounded as a 'w' or 'v' as you please.
> 'x' is the standard IPA for a voiceless velar fricative, the sound of a
> soft/
> fricative kaf according to masora. 'v' at the end of the word is the
> fricative
> bet. the vowels are according to masoretic tradition. The word is
>
> 'and [Karl] wrote' . . .
>
> the word is so common that it is difficult to conceive how someone would
> not readily grasp it. A couple of other scripts
> ويختب كارل
> ουαγιχτοβ καρλ
> ויכתב כארל
> all the same language,
> but its easier and faster to write vayyixtov Karl ...
>
> As I wrote before, I don’t know any Hebrew except Biblical Hebrew, so when
you transcribed modern Hebrew, I was left to guess at what word you meant.
We don’t know how Biblical Hebrew was pronounced, to me the evidence appears
to favor that it was a consonant-vowel language, where every consonant was
followed by a vowel. As such, ויכתב may have been pronounced as WaYeKaToBa.
Pronouncing it this way gives rhythm to the Psalms that is lacking with the
modern pronunciation.

BTW, the first time I saw my name transcribed (by an Israeli) into modern
Hebrew, is was קרל.


> umeqavve ani ki-yesh le-xa Hedva ba-`et ha-zot
> ומקוה אני כי יש לך חדוה בעת הזאת
> הוי שלום  heve shalom
>
> Randall
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life


In closing, the book claims to have been written by a king in Jerusalem, a
descendant of David, with a list of accomplishments that fit only one
individual known from history. The list of particulars clearly put it as a
First Temple period document. The evidence gainsaying that list of
particulars is very weak at best.

The evidence from the use of the term ZMN gives no indication when the
document was written. All the tests used to make a claim based on that term
have failed.

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: You are the one waiting that there is encouragement for me in this time
(??) and woe is fullness (??) More modern Hebrew?