Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

You are right. It is, indeed, true that you may not "need" my  
suggested equivalence of IWAH עוה and IBAH עבה, all you ("you"  
in the general sense) need to do is to look up IWAH in an English- 
Hebrew dictionary (say that of Gesenius) and see that IWAH is  
'overturning', then apply your understanding of 'overturning' to the  
Hebrew text. Human nature and experience is sufficiently universal so  
that to every Hebrew word there corresponds (a peu pres, because  
meaning is extensive) an English word, and vise versa.
I learned English only relatively late in life, and while reading the  
Hebrew bible as a boy, and later as a young man, had nothing to fall  
back upon but Hebrew itself. I knew no other language but Hebrew and  
could hope to understand the biblical text only from within the  
language itself (we did not have at home, nor at school, even a  
Hebrew-Hebrew dictionary). My parents, like their parents and parents  
of parents, were not native Hebrew speakers and studied the bible by  
translation from their native tongues.
So what do I do now? I open the Hebrew dictionary of Eben Shoshan  
("open" is only for the sake of this argument, otherwise I don't need  
him) and see that IWAH is (the often metaphorical) IQEM עקם. So far  
so good, but what is this IQEM? I don't look further because I know  
that this lexical chasing of meaning will cause me to go in circles  
and will be without end. By now I know that IQEM is, more or less,  
what the English call 'bend, crook'. Internally, from within the  
language, I understand that IQEM is 'caused to QUM, caused to rise in  
a heaped shape'. But all this is but the IBAH עבה which I said (to  
myself mostly) in the first place.
Conclusion: there is no intrinsic understanding of the Hebrew  
language without these equivalents.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 25, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Pere Porta wrote:

> Unless you're able to clearly show how this is useful, this is,  
> Isaac, poorly helpful.
> You have a tree: one trunk and several branches.
>
> Saying that this branch and this other branch have the same basic  
> stem... helps us very little. Because branches are very different -- 
> even quite different-  from each other.
>
> Please, if I'm not right show how and why I'm wrong.
> Give some examples, please!
>
>
> Pere Porta
>
> 2011/2/25 Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
> It tells you what the basic meaning of עוה is.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Feb 25, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Pere Porta wrote:
>
> > The root עוה is a variant of the root עבה.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> > __________________
> >
> > Isaac,
> > From time to time I asked you about this kind of postings of yours:
> >
> > What is this useful for?
> >
> > Namely, saying or stating that "The root עוה is a variant of the  
> > root עבה". ... what is it useful for?  Which service does this  
> > give us?
> >
> > You never asked me about this.
> >
> > (I'm not the only member in this list who puts this question...)
> >
> > Give a reasonable answer, please, or stop sending such posting kind.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Pere Porta
> > (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Qohelet 1:15 מעות לא יוכל לתקן וחסרון לא  
> > יוכל להמנות
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pere Porta
>
>
>
>
> --
> Pere Porta