Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

language constantly evolves and changes ...; as independent functions of:

a. time;

b. use; and

c. user.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/books/17words.html?_r=2&hp

hence, the attempt to corral precise meaning of a word, by comparison of
usages and other words, can prove an elusive goal, indeed.

regards,

fred burlingame
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
<nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:

> > The Hebrew root is not isolated, it is not a GALMUD גלמוד ; it
> > has an extended family. It appears to me that the root XLD חלד is a
> > variant of
> גלד, גלש>
> חלד, חלז, חלט, חלץ, חלש>
> *קלד, קלט, קלס, קלש>>
> >and that XLD means essentially 'encrusted, solid'. It is not
> >absolutely clear what the biblical XOLED is, but it is possibly an
> >encrusted or shelled animal, or reptile, such as our CAB צב or
> >XILAZON חלזון from the root חלז (or possibly GALASH), that is
> >enclosed in a GELED גלד shell, from which it NEXLAC נחלץ and
> >into which it NIQLAT נקלט
> >The post-biblical XALUDAH (possibly influenced by Greek) is an oxide
> >GELED or tarnish. It appears to me related to XELAH חלאה
>
> > Isaac Fried, Boston university
>
> isaac, i doubt it whether there is ANY common denominator between ALL these
> words  (except maybe GULA$...? :) )
>
> your argument for it is somewhat arbitrary, too. most of our daily
> experience is with encrusted and/or solid objects. most of them, like EC,
> EVEN, QIR, CUQ, QERAX, E$ET (i hope by now my spelling is more correct) are
> not derived from these roots. not even the word MUCAQ. so why would
> "encrusted, solid" characterize the feeble XILAZON and not the solid E$ET?
>
> finally, if indeed XELED really belongs to the class of words describing
> abstract colossal concepts (like "life", "world", "time" etc),
> i would hardly expect it to derive from this or that material quality,
> to the exclusion of the other material properties (here, excluding MAIM
> and $AMAIM, among others. which, according to Gen. 1, were supposedly
> at the very beginning of it all...
>
> ...AND assuming that XELED refers to the material world, a fact which not
> all
> of us accept in the first place.
>
> nir cohen
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>