Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

>> 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.

Exactly. So why did you object in the first place to the idea that a
word's meaning should be distinguished from the contexts in which
it is used?

>> 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.

Most people would not use English 'initimate' to describe a public
address to a large crowd. To do so would be called 'special pleading'.
Why are you trying to introduce the English word 'intimate'?


> Well, to start out, בלי is not related to בלה, nor is עמדי related to עמד,
> shall I go on?

Yes, you should go on. Are you not aware that words like 'balah' come
from roots that are final-y.? you are aware that `alah comes from the
root `.l.y. עלה as in `aliyti עליתי 'I went up', related to `aley- עלי "upon
(poetic form)"? you are aware that p.n.h. and p.n.y. are the same root?
(Technically, p.n.h. is from p.n.y. If pana פנה was from from p.n.h. the
plural would have been panehu פנהו 'they turned to' like גבהו.)
Is your 'evidence' of two different roots the fact that the preposition
and verb show slight differences or specifications in meaning? In
any other language one finds exactly such slight differences in words
that are etymologically related. Finding such differences in BH would
be as natural as falling off a log. the differences are even less than
differences like 'qadosh' "holy" and 'qedesha' "cult prostitute".


>> >> 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…

Please reread the context that you cite. 4.9-12 are various examples where
'one' has advantages over 'two', only one example is 'sleeping together'.
'falling' and 'picking up' has nothing to do with 'sleeping', nor with 
'working
in partnership'. However, two people certainly resist an aggressor better
than one person, fitting the context to a 'T'.


>> 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.

taqaf תקף 'overpower, be strong against' is a word with a root that refers to
'strength' and 'validity', not 'going in circles'. The verb taqaf is
clearly used in
an aggressive context in Job 15.24, having a transitive object like Ecc 4.12
(reading either yitqefo 'he would overpower him' or yitqefu 'they overpower
the one'), and then Ecc 6.10 'stronger' and Esther 10.2
'strength'  and Dan 11.17 'come in strength' complete the BH picture
while 'walk in circles' is simply forcing the language to suit one's
whim. I would say, 'it is not reading BH'.
For further confirmation you can look at Biblical Aramaic, should you read
it, where another 5 examples of  the adjective and verb closely parallel
what is found in BH and have nothing to do with 'walking in circles'.
[[Should you choose to ignore the above, perhaps basing your 'circles' on
the noun tqwph 'period/change/turn (of time)', you should be aware that it
comes from a root q.w.p. with the nominal 't' prefix, a common biblical
noun formation.]]

So people who are comfortable with BH have always read Ecc 4.12
along the lines that I originally suggested, two stand against an aggressor.
That is BH. (See LXX for an ancient understanding.)
On the other hand, if a student were consistently
misreading BH on their own, I would suggest  that they get more
experience with the language by reading the MT before reading
unvocalized texts. That is certainly a faster route than learning all of the
cognate languages and doing a fully-informed, linguistic reconstruction of
the language only to find out that the language of the MT is linguistically in
line with all of this. (Please note that this still allows one all the room in
the world to repoint and reinterpret individual verses as they wish, and
even to responsibly reconstruct earlier phases of the language pre-MT.)
In any case, students without background would not be qualified to
rewrite and reinterpret BH into some other language based on etymologies.
First one internalizes the categories and vocab, then one reads unvocalized
texts, both biblical and extra-biblical (like the Siloam text where one
should be able to recognize idioms like 'a man his friend/each other',
without chasing inconsistent red herrings). My interest is that people
learn to read BH as quickly and as deeply/fully as possible.


shabbat shalom u-mo`adim le-simHa
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life