Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Shead <srshead+bh AT gmail.com>]

Hello Fred,

OK, I guess I wanted to check that you are treating the biblical Hebrew as
some completely different kind of beast, which doesn't operate by normal
linguistic rules. However, I'm afraid I simply cannot see any basis for your
argument, nor any evidence in the text. All you are doing is finding words
that are spelled similarly which are reasonably close together in the text.
So? And this text is קדש. So? Does that mean it doesn't work like a normal
language?

One question I have is: What kind of controls are there on your supposed
"evidence"? You simply assert that any time there are two words with the
same consonants within some kind of proximity (though, seriously, 9 verses
apart is not very close!), this is automatically a "word play". How do you
know? How could we know whether you are right, and the author was putting in
subtle meaning associations, or (as I suspect) whether you're simply
imagining something that's not there?

It seems we have very different basic premises: I consider that, since the
(consonantal) text was originally written by native speakers in the language
they used for normal communication, it should be treated as such. And in a
"normal" language, homographs do not need to have deeply connected meanings,
and homographs within a few sentences of each other usually have no special
significance or connection.

Now when I say that the Hebrew Bible is "normal" language, I am not denying
a "religious" or "spiritual" otherness to the text - on the contrary! But if
it has a unique character, that is not because it suddenly stopped obeying
the norms of language and communication when people began to treat or
recognise it as "Scripture".

Returning to your particular example: To say that we have "two identical
words נחל" which are conjugated differently seems to me a bit like saying
that "rat" and "ration" are two identical words which are conjugated
differently (after all, they only differ in the standard suffix -ion).

As for Isaac's suggested generic root meaning "spread over, include" for
נחל, I find this unconvincing. It's a bit like a lateral thinking exercise:
if I try hard enough, I can find some kind of logical way of jumping from
each particular word to his general idea, even if it means I have to tell a
little story ("people spread out over the land when they came to live on it,
and so it became their hereditary possession"). That does not mean, however,
that נחלה means "spread out". Maybe Isaac is right, or maybe it's just that
he's a good lateral thinker.

The same goes for נחל: I'm not sure that the concept "spread out" is really
what comes to mind when one thinks of a river valley / stream. The water
runs down, rather than spreading out. But even conceding that point: How
does "spread out" work in the cases where נחל is a ravine or shaft? e.g. Job
28:4 and Isa. 7:9.

But having said all that, I'm very happy to concede that apparently
unrelated homographs and homonyms sometimes do turn out to be related
etymologically. That is, in terms of semantic development, let's suppose
that Isaac is right, and the two words developed from a single word/concept
meaning "spread out." This doesn't change anything at the level of
synchronic language use. That is, in the minds of native speakers, if the
final meanings are as divergent as they are in this case, it's the
particular meanings that come to mind, not the etymology.

A little example in English: It turns out that "sole (of foot)" and "sole
(the fish)" are etymologically related: both come from Latin
*solea*"sandal" - because the fish looks rather like a sandal.
However, in the
minds of native speakers of English, there is absolutely no connection
whatsoever between the two, and to assert a common "deep" meaning at the
level of synchronic use would be fanciful.

I'm happy to bow out of the conversation at this point - feel free to have
the last word. It seems that our basic premises are so different that the
conversation probably wouldn't go anywhere useful.

Best regards,
Stephen Shead
Centro de Estudios Pastorales
Santiago, Chile

On 19 November 2010 00:53, fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>