Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Paul:

Thanks for your informative comments.

I understand the following theory prevails at this time in academia, though
with the usual and customary dissent. The alphabet and its language(s),
rather than experiencing an event of creation, arose by gradual evolution
from the hieroglyph and its language(s) over centuries 2000-1000 b.c.

http://www.bib-arch.org/scholars-study/alphabet.asp

http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=6

Hence:

a. the one to one correspondence between hieroglyph and word;

b. gradually moved to single alphabet letter one to one correspondence with
a word;

c. and thence, to two alphabet letters correspondence to a single word;

d. and thence, to three alphabet letters correspondence to a single word.

The two letter parent root in this instance חל (chet, lamed) birthed 2,
three letter child roots,

i. the one by adding י (yod) or ו (waw) between the two consonants;

ii. the other by repeating ל (lamed).

And so, the question persists; what is the tie that binds the two child
roots to the parent? What meaning of the parent is common to the two
children?

regards,

fred burlingame


On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

> Fred,
>
> While the parts of the two roots remaining in the forms found in the verse
> are identical, "two letter consonantal root(s)" are basically non-existent
> in Hebrew.  And there are several ways in which trilateral roots reduce to
> biliteral representations.
>
> The traditional roots for these specific occurrences, the ones resulting in
> our current translations, are חלל (the same root as the nominal form תחלה -
> beginning, first) and חיל (from חול).  If, as I personally believe based on
> the context, these identifications are correct, then the answers to your
> musings would be: 1) the author did not grasp at all to choose these words.
>  They were words normally used to express the thoughts expressed in the
> verse.  That their surface representations were similar is merely
> accidental.  2) the two remaining root letters come neither from there being
> a common root or an illusion.  They result from two different phonological
> processes in the language.  3) The two words have different meanings, and
> their roots have different meanings.
>
> If you wish to posit that the two come from a single root, you are welcome
> to do so.  However, the burden then lies on your shoulders to defend what
> that root is (remember--triliteral) and what it means.  To present options
> of alternate roots is an acceptable scholarly exercise, but it is normal to
> demonstrate how the changing the roots also change the meaning of the verse.
>
> Paul Zellmer
>
>