Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Karl, this is not a point of debate.


Who says this is a debate?


> Let me try to clarify.
> It simply means that when
> a word is used in a particular context one does not transfer
> meaning from that context to another context on the basis
> of the same word being used in both. For example, a word
> like le-shaleaH (sh.l.H. pi``el) 'to send off' can be used in
> both positive and negative contexts.


What that shows is that neither positivity nor negativity are intrinsic to
the meaning of the verb. That’s simple lexicography.


> I believe that this side discussion developed out of
> questioning your claim that 'neged' implied "intimacy".
>

Oh, is that the problem? I also defined “intimacy” in the context of this
discussion as including even crowd situations but where they are close
enough for communications.

>
> …
> >> 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'.
> . . .
> >
> > I wonder how many nouns, adjectives and adverbs are their
> > own roots, not connected to any Hebrew verbal root?
>
> did you want to claim that that any of the list were not
> related?
>
> Well, to start out, בלי is not related to בלה, nor is עמדי related to עמד,
shall I go on?

>
> >> 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.
>
> You do not see it?     Why not?
>

Context. Verse 9–12 are a section of how two are better than one—sleeping
together in the same bed, working intimately together…


>
> Ecc 4.12 ‏
> אם־יתקפו האחד השנים יעמדו נגדו
> if someone overpower/attack him, the one,
> the two will stand against/resist him.
>

If the one makes himself go around in circles, the second will make him
stand in his presence.

> >
>
> blessings
> Randall Buth
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>

Karl W. Randolph.