Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>wrote:

> >> With the common collocation with 'eyes', perhaps 'in front of'.
> >
> > ... therefore the common collocation is wrong.
>
> This makes no sense. A "collocation" exists, it is not right or wrong.
> neged often occurs in conjunction with 'eyes'. Period.
>

And sometimes occurs in the negation of eyes, namely that something can be
seen, but not in the presence of. Two famous examples are Moses viewing
Canaan from Mount Nebo, and the prophets from Jericho viewing Elisha
returning from Elijah going up in the chariot of fire.

>
> >> Yes, etymological proposals must be weighed for plausibility. However,
> >> proposing an etymology, whether accepted of not, is not the
> >> 'etymological fallacy'.
> >
> > The insistence that similarly spelled words indicate etymology is a
> fallacy.
> > This is what you were doing.
>
> Please respond to the point. There was no insistence.


Then you ought be more careful with your phraseology, as you were claiming
in no uncertain terms that they were etymologies, and when I objected, you
repeated your claim.


> Etymologies are
> proposals with probabilities, reasonable or far-fetched. Do you deny that
> p.n.y. "to turn' and l+p.n.y. "before" or panim 'face(s)' are related?


You keep changing the “etymologies” you ask about. And yes, I will agree
that some are from the same root, hence etymologies, such as “to face” and
“before one’s face”, but others are not etymologies.


> Is it
> reasonable that 'turning' and 'face' could be related in a language when
> the
> consonants fit?


That is not enough. The consonants can come from different roots. Meaning
also needs to back up proposed etymologies.


> ...
> >> >>>> Ecc 4.12
> >> >>>>: אם־יתקפו האחד השנים יעמדו נגדו
> >> >>>> if someone overpower/attack him, the one,
> >> >>>> the two will stand against/resist him.
> >> 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.
> >
> > This is a more substantive argument.
>
> Actually, decisive.
>
> At this point it would have been proper to admit a basic mistake.
>

I went on to the next step. You had claimed that this verse shows a certain
use of NGD נגד whereas my response that even using the verb TQP תקף does not
show what you claim, as you had misused that verb.


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

Karl W. Randolph.