Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] lock without a key

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Paul Zellmer" <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com>
  • To: "'fred burlingame'" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: 'B-Hebrew' <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] lock without a key
  • Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:37:15 -0400

Why limit the “consumer’s” options to “army” or “tangible property”? Why not
the other concepts that the word is used to express in other situations?
Consider “might, strength, power; valiant, virtuous, valor; army, host,
forces; riches, substance, wealth; et al.” [Had you just looked up the
reference clearly given you, you would have seen this list in TWOT 624a. You
would have also noted that the probable root verb was the one translated “be
firm, strong.”] You limit the options to two twigs at the ends of separate
branches of the range of meanings, both of which are clearly indicated by the
two contexts in which they are found. A list of spoils in Numbers 31:9 is
by no means similar to the ones under the leadership of the ones with whom
Moses was angry. With two clearly different contexts/usages, no matter how
physically close those contexts are in the text, two different “twigs” should
not be surprising, especially when you are dealing with what must be
idiomatic usages.



If the “consumer” had any initial concept come to mind, something that I
personally think would have only happened with a person who is not completely
comfortable with the language and its idioms, it would have probably been
“might, strength” or “power.” Then the “consumer” would have tried to
determine what aspect of that central concept was being emphasized in that
context. That being said, in these cases (especially that found in verse 9),
the “consumer” would have probably had to find other cases where the word is
used in similar contexts to determine the idiom, because (as is frequently
the case of idioms) it is quite a stretch from the initial concept.



All this being said, you are still concerned with a common problem with
translating in general, no matter what the source or target languages may be.
There is never a one-to-one correspondence of meanings, and the problems
increase the farther apart the languages are on the linguistic tree. Much
ado about nothing (to paraphrase a later post of yours)? No, but not
something isolated to Hebrew-to-English translation, and thus not ever going
to be solved on this list.



Paul Zellmer



From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:40 PM
To: Paul Zellmer
Cc: B-Hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] lock without a key




Paul:



I hear what you both say, but it appears to me, that a big difference exists
between the hebrew and its english translation.



a. When the consumer of the hebrew language hears the word "ha-yil" he thinks
"army" or "tangible property" as potential meanings of "ha-yil" (in the
context of numbers 31:9,14).



b. When the consumer of the english language hears the word "army" he doesn't
think "tangible property" as a potential meaning of "army" or vice versa (in
the context of these two verses).



Biblical hebrew language does not surpass or defer to modern english
language. But the two languages simply become susceptible of but approximate
translation between the two.



regards,



fred burlingame












Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page