Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Naama,

It appears to me that אדמה is solid, אטמה, עצמה, while  
עפר like אפר is powder.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Nov 10, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Naama Zahavi-Ely wrote:

> Yes -- except that the word "ground" is usually used for an expanse  
> of material, not for the material it is made of.  You don't usually  
> pick up a pinch of ground; you can definitely do that with עפר.   
> A closer equivalent to the English word "ground" is אדמה.  But  
> languages do not match in word boundaries as a rule.  That's why  
> translating is such a fascinating task.
>
> Best
>
> Naama
>
> ---- Original message ----
> > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:05:15 -0500
> > From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew]  watered ground & forming dust
> > To: nxzaha AT wm.edu
> > Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >
> > Naama,
> >
> > Ground sounds good. Compare the root עפר with the roots אפר,
> > אבר, עבר, עור, פרר, ברר.
> >
> > Isaac Fried
> > Boston University
> >
> > On Nov 10, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Naama Zahavi-Ely wrote:
> >
> > > Shalom!
> > >
> > > The problem is that you are dealing through English with something
> > > for which there is no good English term.  I run into this problem
> > > every year as I read the text of Genesis 1-3 with intermediate
> > > Hebrew students.  "Afar," which is translated as "dust," is
> > > actually not (dry, wind-blown) dust but rather earth/soil as
> > > material -- that is, the collective term for particles of earth
> > > that one can pick up and pinch between one's fingers.  It can be
> > > dry or moist, and it can be formed.  I have not been able to find a
> > > better English word -- every possibility I can think of has other
> > > connotations that are misleading (ground?  earth?  soil?).
> > >
> > > I also agree with Yigal's reasoning -- you can't apply Aristotelian
> > > logic to the Hebrew Bible (or for that matter to most usage of any
> > > language).  But in this case, the argument is not necessary.
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > >
> > > Naama Zahavi-Ely
> > > College of William and Mary
> > >
> > > > Message: 3
> > > > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:59:46 -0700
> > > > From: Gerry Folbre <gfolbreiii AT gmail.com>
> > > > Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust
> > > > To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > >         <a79631010911091659rf59c74ewaf2c29d1d0c10644 AT mail.gmail.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > > >
> > > > I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies
> > > > composed
> > > > within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a.
> > > >
> > > > Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ...  {and irrigated [watered/made
> > > > wet] the
> > > > whole face of the ground).
> > > >
> > > > Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ????????  {and it
> > > > formed the
> > > > human archetype of dust from the ground ...)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is
> > > > irrigated.
> > > > But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)?
> > > > being
> > > > found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a  
> > > > also
> > > > apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can
> > > > somehow be
> > > > ?formed?.  However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is
> > > > not an
> > > > earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a
> > > > potter forms a
> > > > vessel)?.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into  
> > > > these
> > > > contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects
> > > > with you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gerry Folbre
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew