Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

>> 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'?
>
> Which word would you have used?

With the common collocation with 'eyes', perhaps 'in front of'.


>> > 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.?
>
> Ah, the etymological fallacy. Just because two words are spelled the same
> without vowels does not mean that they are from the same root.

Yes, etymological proposals must be weighed for plausibility. However,
proposing an etymology, whether accepted of not, is not the
'etymological fallacy'. The fallacy occurs when one takes the
proposed meaning of a root and applies it directly to an actual word,
overriding the the historical development of a word and its synchronic,
actual usage. This is frequently encountered today when one hears
sermons preached by those with a little Hebrew, and sometimes in
commentaries, too. Fifty years ago a youngish scholar, James Barr, took
the whole field to task for flagrantly abusing 'etymology' in place of
lexicography. There is still a tendency to abuse this and my explanation
for this sad/amusing phenomenon is that it is a result of the common
ways in which Hebrew is taught. But that is another thread.


>>>> 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'.
>
> This is a hithpael of NQP נקף. In other words, the idea of running around
> like a chicken with its head cut off.

there are problems with this proposal.

1. A hitpa``el normally has some preposition other than a 'direct object'
for any adjunct added to a verb. (There are a few that use a 'direct object'
where the meaning has a more comples transitivity.)
Here, if a singular is read there is a suffix to the verb; if a plural is read
then ha-eHad is the object.
2. A minor problem is the fact/probability that n.q.p. is not attested as
a hitpa``el. A person may always propose such a verb, but some
doubt will attach to the proposal because of a lack of parallel.
3. Most importantly, the morphology cannot support the proposal. A
hitpa``el would have been spelled y.t.n.q.p.w. יתנקפו. the nun does
not drop or get absorbed in the pi``el and hitpa``el forms. Without
a nun in the consonantal text you would be required to amend the
text and would be doing so arbitrarily, and after already showing a
lack of control of the language.

So there are problems, and to such a degree that they suggest that
such a proposer would not be able to read BH accurately or
independently. I would suggest cutting one's loses and starting over.
This is not a problem of theology that
requires a defence at all costs, no matter how improbable or how
much it contradicts the rest of the language. You may always
propose that the 'aggressive/antagonistic' sense of neged occurred
in First Temple BH and do not need to cite this as evidence
against Solomonic authoriship. But the lack of control of the
language system suggests a more basic underlying problem that
needs to be remedied.

>> …
[RB]
>> On the other hand, … I would suggest  that they get more
>> experience with the language by reading the MT before reading
>> unvocalized texts.
>
[KR]
> That’s exactly what I did, for several times of reading Tanakh through cover
> to cover. That’s when I noticed that the points all too often suggest
> readings that don’t make sense or don’t fit their contexts, whereas the
> unpointed text indicates readings that fit their contexts as well as grammar
> and syntax. I eventually stopped using those points as a crutch. I made that
> switch years ago.
> I would suggest that one read the complete text of Tanakh through, cover to
> cover, several times, in order to get familiar with the language. (Sort of
> like how bank tellers are taught to recognize counterfeits.)

It seems that my note on 'what to do' was prophetic and I re-recommend it,
more carefully, if need be.

blessings
Randall Buth

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