Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

David:
>
> Karl and Randall,
> Randall:  I agree with you absolutely, only those roots that are R-(-H
> =  R-(-Y are candidates for  (רעיון) Ra(YoN.

That is good to hear. Then the discussion can proceed rationally.
When will Karl say the same?
his last post avoided the issue, which unnecessarily lengthens the
discussion.

PS: there is a difference between a root that is C.C.y and C.C.h.
(C.C.y = "consonant-consonant-yod)
The latter, C.C.h. (for example, g.b.h 'tall, high') will preserve its 'h' in
derived words and forms.
Verbs from C.C.y. will have a graphic 'h' in forms without any suffix,
(e.g., b.n.h 'build') but will show the original 'y' in many forms with
suffixes (b.n.y.t.y 'I built').
ra`yon and the verb ra`ah both come from resh-`ayin-yod root(s).

> I became aware of that while
> I was writing, but was too busy to fix the post.  I did feel that all of the
> words that I expounded upon was relevant to the discussion.

Yes, they are, sort of like siblings in a nuclear family are related to
cousins, too. Roots with different weak letters often share some traits.
Of course, as you mention later 'with a grain of salt', etymology
does not determine meaning, it is only a backwards look at the
history of meanings.

> I do not
> agree however that any root in Hebrew with Tsade  that may have
> changed to Ayin in Aramaic is relevant.  I do not believe that Aramaic
> predated Hebrew.  I believe that they evolved separately along their
> own lines.

You may have mis-read me. Of course Aramaic and Hebrew proceeded
separately. but they also influenced each other. In the 1T era, Israel and
the Arameans bordered each other (note Tel Dan inscription). More
importantly, much more, during the 2T, Aramaic was the language
of the ruling government and it was in a strongly bilingual community
in Judea with Hebrew. consequently, there is a high incidence of
cross borrowing and influence between H and Ar during the 2T.
Also, tsade did not directly change into `ayin in Aramaic. there were
earlier phonemes involved that I skipped for simplicity's sake on
this list. Jeremiah, though, does testify that a word that in Heb
was erets 'land', was arqa in Aram, and from the exilic time on, it
was ארעא ar`a, with `ayin, which Jeremiah also recorded in the
same verse. ar`a is common in Daniel and Ezra afterwards.
There was another consonant in the history of these languages, too.
the so-called ghayin, but that is not relevant to the ts~`ayin
relationships between Hebrew and Aramaic.
ts~`ayin was certainly relevant to the two languages and there are
many words in Aramaic that show this development as well as showing
up in 2T Hebrew and rabbinic Hebrew.
(Incidentally, Ju 5 מחק shows a northern dialect 'Hebrew' word
within this phonetic world, where both maHats and maHaq could
be used for poetic effect.)

> Unlike Karl, I strongly believe that cognates from other
> semitic languages can be used to INFORM Hebrew etymology, but I
> do not believe that it is determinative ie) it must be taken with a grain
> of salt.

Yes, all etymology is to be taken with a grain of salt. that is why one hears
of an 'etymological fallacy', as if a derivative word could only have
the meaning
of an earlier, source word. this is especially problematic in the Semitic
languages because of the way that students are taught morphology.
First and second year students are so ingrained with thinking along
etymological lines that they frequently make mistakes along these
lines when doing later research. if their training stops after a couple
of years, it is even worse.


>> Karl:  For the most part, I also rely on the Tanakh to inform my
>> understanding of Biblical Hebrew.

Karl also rejects the morphology that is recorded in Mishnaic
Hebrew and the MT, and every other Semitic language. He is not
trained to evaluate what is reliable linguistically in the MT tradition,
and what is verified through comparison with other Semitic
languages and their internal linguistic structure.
So he throws out 100% of that data, regardless of whether it is in
the 90% solid, reliable, biblical stuff, and substitutes his unverified,
frequently contra-indicated, fantasy. That becomes "his" BH. It is
difficult to have a discussion with such a position, but occasionally
it strays over into something that is verifiable in the consonantal
text without recourse to comparative Semitics. ra`yon is such
a case, where the root consonants resh, `ayin, yod are visible,
yet Karl opted for resh, `ayin, `ayin, incorrectly. The only reason
for that that I can fathom is that he wanted to argue a position that
was against the whole history of the word within Hebrew. But with
this word he overstepped the bounds and his etymology was
false. And before he disagrees with this outside reading of his
statements, let him admit that deriving רעיון r.`.y.w.n from
resh-`ayin-`ayin "bad, displeasure"
was a mistake.
Then we can talk and proceed. Until then, everything written sounds
like a smokescreen. We don't want to view his statements in this
way, it's just that without an explicit admission, such a possibility
looms large.

David:
>        shatter / impair (Jr15:12) ,        be broken down (Jr15:12)
> (Jb34:24)

These are good.
For Karl you need to add: Isaiah 24.19 where the earth totters, is
shaken to pieces and both `ayin show up in the consonantal text.
hitro`a`ah התרעעה.

> 3a - Ra( (רע) - perception, thought  (Ps139:2,17)

Yes, these are correct. 'thoughts' are certainly the best contextual
fit here. The exact root, of course, is not clear because we only
have two letters visible though the vocalization rea` points to
something other than (r.`.`. "bad, displeasure").
Plus, everyone must admit that a homonym rea` ;friend'
"and you shall have love for you rea` (friend) who is like you"
(Lv 19) exists, and that homonym certainly does
NOT carry a connotation of "bad" like in Karl's "displeasure".
The problem, like most things historical, is that one can always
change them, and then declare on the basis of personal
subjectivity that they love their, 'new' reading better,
even if it has no attestation or parallel.  In effect they can clothe
their subjectivity with ignorance of outside confirmation and create
a single, isolated fantasy. But with ra`yon we are spared such
hubris by the morphology reflected in the consonantal text. It is
just taking some time for the coin to drop.

>3b - Ra(aH (רעה) - to welcome, befriend, desire, take delight in, enjoy
> MaR(aH   companion (Jd14:20); to enjoy (Ps37:3)

all fine, though their exact etymology is obscure. Ju is clear iin
meaning, but the developmental difference between the homographs
m.r.` 'evil' and m.r.`. 'friend' is not clear on the surface.
Ps 37 is possible, but may have developed from 'tend the flock' to
'take care of your faithfulness' But as said and agreed by all,
etymology does not determine the meaning of the word and in these
cases it is clear that resh-`ayin-`ayin "bad, displeasure" is not the root.

Hopefully, that clears things up a bit more. and perhaps these have
been good words for learning and evaluating BH.
They do illustrate something that can be learned about BH.

blessings
Randall Buth

-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life