Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] priest code?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: Stephen Shead <srshead+bh AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] priest code?
  • Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:53:29 -0600

Hello Stephen:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your comments.

I would offer the following reply.

I do not doubt the commonality of homonym, but the aristocracy of this text
stands against it here. For better or worse, the masoretic text
chronically holds itself out as קדש rather than חל .

And hence, we return to the existential question posed at the beginning of
this thread. Can the whole be divorced from the parts, and yet achieve
basic understanding of the biblical hebrew language? Your comments
implicitly tend to reinforce the negative answer to that question. Common
word play in a comic book means one thing; and set apart word play in a
priest code carries an entirely different connotation.

The masoretic text promotes itself, right or wrong, as a source of
instruction, not diversion. Hence, to seek understanding of this language
via the lens of a comic book, rather than through the context of a קדש book,
represents a path doomed to failure, imho.

I agree that a homonym appears not in the two verses I cited. Rather, we
have two identical words נחל, (while conjugated differently)
nonetheless enjoy widely differing english meanings. The tie that binds
those two different usages may occur as Isaac describes or otherwise; but
the substance of the entire text argues against discount of the binding.

regards,

fred burlingame


On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Stephen Shead
<srshead+bh AT gmail.com<srshead%2Bbh AT gmail.com>
> wrote:

> Hi Fred,
>
> I've been watching your posts on the supposed intimate semantic connections
> between homographs or near homographs in BH, based on the fact that an
> author may use both words within the space of a few verses. To be honest,
> I'm completely bemused. The phenomena you describe are perfectly normal
> within language. It's ordinary, garden-variety semantics: native speakers
> have no absolutely trouble using homographs (or homonyms / near-hononyms, in
> spoken language) close together without confusion or merging of meanings,
> and without us having to conclude that the two words really have an
> "intimate relationship". I see absolutely no reason (notwithstanding Isaac's
> theory) to treat biblical Hebrew as essentially different from every other
> language in the world.
>
> And in this particular case, the two words are not even homographs. In Num.
> 32:9, the word is נחל (NXL), whereas in Num. 32:18 it is נחלה (NXLH), with
> the feminine suffix.
>
> To try to draw a modern parallel: It's like saying that the Spanish
> *caro*("expensive" - masc.) and
> *cara* ("face" - fem.) must really be the same word, or at least must have
> some deeply interrelated meaning. Moreover, if I were to write a little
> story in which the hero sees a woman with a pretty *cara*, falls in love
> with her, and a couple of paragraphs later buys her a ring which is very *
> caro*, there must be some deep connection, a reason for which those two
> words are so close together, which either merges their meanings or proves
> that they're really expressions of the same deeper sense.
>
> Now maybe a non-native Spanish student might, in studying my little Spanish
> text, propose that hypothesis - after all, the orthographic similarity is
> impossible to miss! But to a native speaker, it simply would not cross their
> mind. The connection just isn't there, and there is no possibility for
> confusion or "intimate relationship". (I'm sure the Spanish speakers on the
> list will back me up on this...)
>
> The vast majority of the time, language simply doesn't work that way. Yes,
> there is such a thing as a play on words, which an author can carefully
> construct as a literary device; and words with similar form often have
> related meanings, of course. But in your example here: two different nouns,
> spelled differently, with clearly established and very different meanings,
> appearing 9 verses apart (!!!) - with, as far as I can see, no other
> indication that a word-play is meant...
>
> This is supposed to be a "circumstance [which] weighs heavy against a
> conclusion of arbitrariness", and which supports our general theory of
> Hebrew semantics? Or am I completely missing what you are trying to suggest?
>
> Best regards,
> Stephen Shead
> Centro de Estudios Pastorales
> Santiago, Chile
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
>> To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:54:46 -0600
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] priest code?
>> Hello all:
>>
>> Examination of the biblical hebrew ("BH") language's pieces and parts
>> useful, but perhaps the language's indivisibility requires an holistic
>> approach to proper understanding.
>>
>> And so we have:
>>
>> ויעלו עד נחל אשכול ויראו את הארץ ויניאו את לב בני ישראל לבלתי בא אל הארץ
>> אשר
>> נתן להם יהוה
>>
>> numbers 32:9;
>>
>> and
>>
>> לא נשוב אל בתינו עד התנחל בני ישראל איש נחלתו
>>
>> numbers 32:18
>>
>> The three letter word נחל encodes two widely different meanings in these
>> verses. The message of "stream valley" emerges in the first verse. And the
>> meaning of "inherit" or "possess" appears communicated by the second.
>>
>> The masoretic text authors devoted great care and attention to each of its
>> words. Witness the plethora of dagesh, cantillation markings, niqqud, etc.
>> This circumstance weighs heavy against a conclusion of arbitrariness in
>> assigning different meanings to the same word.
>>
>> So, whilst "stream valley" and "inheritance" enjoy zero connexity
>> in english, an intimate relationship arguably arises between those two
>> meanings in BH. Repeat this scenario countless times, and the whole of the
>> language becomes much greater than the sum of its parts (words, etc.).
>>
>> BH has certainly changed and re-incarnated as a language for comic books,
>> war, social interaction, etc., etc. And such other uses for and changes to
>> the language may have existed in 1010 b.c. But in its original format as
>> the
>> masoretic text, can this language be understood other than by viewing it
>> as
>> a whole?
>>
>> If the entire BH language served as some sort of priest code, can language
>> message be divorced from its pieces and parts, and language comprehension
>> remain?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Code
>>
>> Appearance of the little word נחל argues not.
>>
>> And lest I run afoul of the proscription on theological content here, I am
>> not advocating any particular theology or lack thereof. I am simply
>>
>> questioning whether the BH language can be understood, at all, and apart
>> from the masoretic text message, whatever the message might be.
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page