Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On 9/22/10, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:
> One must distinguish between what a word means and
> the contexts where it can be used.

Say again?

The contexts of where it is used is part of its meaning. Just don’t
confuse it with translated glosses.

> See 2Sm 12:12, among
> others, where it is public, and in 'deed' not in speech.

My understanding of the verb is that it sometimes deals with a deed
rather than specifically with speech.

> (Gn 33:12 'in front' [leading],

My reading of the context has always understood as “in company with”,
not “in front”.

>> Therefore, a verb from the same root exhibiting a
>> meaning derived from the same root would be expected
>> to mean something like “to bring into the
>> presence of, present, demonstrate, lay out, (when the
>> object is speech) to make known (to present, lay out
>> using a verbal picture)”.
>
> Even with the soft wording 'would be expected to mean',
> the word 'therefore' is an argument from etymology
> and the conclusion is unreliable. For examples
> where etymology cannot be relied on with prepositions
> and verbs, consider bli בלי, approx. 'without' and
> the related verb balah בלה, approx. 'wear out'.

There are a lot of false etymologies, especially with Hebrew. Just
because a word has a similar spelling, or even has a form that could
be derived from a certain root, does not mean that it was so derived.
Just off the top of my head, I suspect that close to half the listed
etymologies, particularly in traditional lexicons, are false
etymologies.

I wonder how many nouns, adjectives and adverbs are their own roots,
not connected to any Hebrew verbal root?

>
> This extrapolation from 'neged' is an example of what
> should not be done, unless a word is extremely
> rare and one has no choice but to guess from the meanings
> of related words.

I don’t see why not. I view all sources of understanding as valid, but
the sources need to be weighted according to trustworthiness. After
all, an adjectival use of a word may reveal a nuance not readily
recognized in a verb, but that clarifies the use of the verb.
>
>> During the Babylonian Exile, there seems to be a
>> shift of meaning. Ezekiel 40–42 seems to use it
>> in the sense of “opposite, on the other side”
>> while Daniel 10:13, 16 even has the idea of “opposing”.
>
> This is also good, in that the 'antagonistic' meaning
> of neged definitely strengthened in the later history
> of the language. However, I am not sure that you would
> be willing to go in this direction since the meaning
> that you find in Dan 10.13-16 is also found in
> Eccl 4.12 ya`amdu negdo יעמדו מגדו. Of course, you could
> date Qohelet to the Second Temple period, but you did
> not want to do that last year.

No, I do not see that meaning in Ecclesiastes 4:12.
>
>> Many of the uses in Nehemiah seem to be deliberate
>> archaizing to pre-Babylonian uses,
>
> This is not reasoned at all. It would first need to be
> shown that the sense 'in front of, within sight' was
> no longer in use, but Nehemiah itself is evidence that
> that meaning was still in use. So it is a case of
> assuming a conclusion against the actual evidence.

My impression of the whole book that it is archaizing, not just this one term.
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life

Karl W. Randolph.