Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] ra`yon and `inyan and what can be learned

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
  • To: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] ra`yon and `inyan and what can be learned
  • Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:58:57 +0200

ra`yon and `inyan and what can be learned

Karl:
>>> R(( seems to be one of those roots, and that understanding
>>> allows it to be recognized as a possible root for R(YWN in
>>> Qohelet.
>>
RB:
>> but still morphologically wrong and unjustified,
>
Karl:
> You are thinking here like a mathematician. But does human
> language always act cleanly like mathematics? Should not
> context be the first rule that trumps formal considerations?

Semantics are fluid in human language, yes. See below.
And more than one word can often fit in the context of a
“cloze test” in any language. [those language tests where one fills
in a blank within a text].
BUT morphology and phonology are tight, closer to mathematics. Like
linguistics, to be precise. My statement was made as a Hebraist and
a linguist. Karl's statements were a mistake, were wrong, and remain
wrong. He cannot trampel on morphology but must explain it.
What is worse, is that he is not learning from his mistake.

We will outline the data here. And then the matter should rest.

RB
> A person FIRST needs to recognize that the root of רעיון,
> is resh-`ayin-yod and could have meanings and words that are
> a metaphorical extension beyond 'feed'   (wow, a novel idea!)

The facts in the case are that ra`yon truly has a morphological
connection to resh. `ayin. yod.

(No one can reject this, without exposing an
ignorance of linguistics and Hebrew.)

Please note: having a morphological connection does not tell
us finally what the word means. It only tells us that the
connection does not directly go to, or proceed from, r.`.`.

There are connections within the Hebrew Bible for ra`yon
that line up with mental space, and "consideration".
Jer 3:15 with the verb from this root talks about
"pasturing" people with knowledge and understanding.”
Ps 139.2-5 most probably talks about God knowing our thoughts,
our רע rea`. (רֵע ,masc., רֵעֶה masc., and fem. רֵעָה, also appear
commonly in BH as the concrete nouns 'friend, associate'.)
(We will discuss the lamed in “banta le-” below)
Ps 37:3 talks of r`h emunah” approx 'shepherding trust, watching
over and guarding ones faithfulness'.

The phrase “shepherd [root r.`.y.] the wind, chase the eastwind”
occurs in Hoshea 12,
and an interesting collocation ra`yon ruaH occurs in Qohelet.
(Cf. Jer 22.22, too.)

The phrase רעיון לב occurs in Qohelet and in Aramaic in the book of
Daniel. In Daniel the phrase refers to the mental processes of the
mind, something close to the probable reading of Psalm 139.2.
[Everyone should be aware that a closely cognate language may,
or may not, reflect a word with a close meaning, either as a cognate
or as a borrowing. Here, it is not just the word, but a whole phrase.
Let the reader judge its appropriateness at Qoh. 2.22.]

The LXX translates Qoh 2.22 as προαιρεσιν της καρδιας, approx:
‘decision/intention/commitment of the heart’. This ancient
testimony may or may not be close to what Qohelet meant.

Other Aramaic dialects, like Syriac, continue the meaning of Daniel’s
ra`yon as ‘mind, way of thinking, opinion’. This too, may or may not
be what Qohelet was saying.

Mishnaic Hebrew uses ra`yon as 'thought, desire'. This may or may
not be Qohelet's meaning.

Arabic continues the r.`.y. idiom ‘keep in mind, pay attention’, but
this is late and would lose importance unless as additional support. It
would not overrule a united chorus of other witnesses.
Here it joins the chorus.

Incidentally, all of the Semitic languages cited include words from
r.`.y. related to “shepherding” as well for ra`yon and/or r.`.y. They
have no problem with the general associations that result between
this root and the other words.
(Karl seems to be the only one with problems, he refuses to allow
the very flexibility in semantic development that he mentioned
as a trait of human language. Note that this does not change the
morphology or tightness of the morphological system. Karl had
this backwards when objecting to the connection between r.`.y
and ra`yon.) This also illustrates the difference between
etymology and the meaning of a particular word. Words and
context do indeed present themselves as a reality outside of
etymology. But defining words must be done correctly and
responsibly and without recourse to blatantly false etymology.

> [RB] As mentioned, when an item is rare in the Heb Bible, and
> ra`yon only occurs 3xx and only in Qohelet, and when it's
> etymology might seem not to fit clearly, then it is time
> to raise ones eyes and get a wider perspective.
> "[KR] I have nothing against consulting cognate languages.
> In fact, for some of the lesser known terms in Biblical Hebrew,
> such consultation may be the only way we can get enough
> context to understand a word."
>
> ra`yon occurs 6xx in Aramaic Daniel, in the Bible.
> And once it even occurs with the exact collocation as Qohelet,
> "the ra`yon of the heart". Wow!
> It's hard to ask for more than that in the world of limited data.

The above is a fair outline of the data. Certainly, the 'consideration
of the heart' fits the context at Qohelet 2.22 and 'consideration
of the wind' fits 1.17 and 4.16,
though it appears to be a word play with “shepherding the wind.”
One thing is very clear, the word ra`yon and the root r.`.y. have
no problem fitting together.

In the face of this, Karl, has proposed to jump to an
UNjustified root, to extract a meaning from that wrong root,
and to add it to specific word ra`yon, and then to insist that his
mistaken meaning, and it alone, is the true contextual meaning
of the word. That is bad linguistics, bad Hebrew,
and after too many emails on this thread, it becomes
an example of how not to learn Hebrew.

An aside on Ps 139
[Karl]
> If I agree with the concept that the verb means בין BYN to
> have insight, there is another problem, namely that where
> בין BYN is followed by a lamed prefix, it is used in a sense
> of telling, teaching, to another person. Then
> it comes out “you tell it to my neighbor from afar.” That is
> when it is not followed by an infinitive. Or do you know of
> examples where that doesn’t hold true?

Here Karl confuses the hif`il and qal verbs from b.y.n. Yes, the
hif`il le-habiyn does use l- for someone receiving understanding.
But that is only a part of the picture.
Prov 14.15 appears to be a qal with l- used for the object
of ones understanding, in parallel to the first clause:
‏פתי יאמין לכל־דבר
וערום יבין לאשרו
a fool will believe (le-) every thing,
and a sharp/clever person will discern (le-) his step/walk.
Is 32
‏ולבב נמהרים יבין לדעת
'the mind of the troubled will discern knowledge.
Also probably a 'qal'. (tehnically, the prefix conjugation yabiyn
is a homonym in the qal and hif`il. The qal fits better
here.)
Ps 139.2 banta l- is certainly a qal.
There is no problem reading lamed with banta, it is the
preferred preposition for the not too-common verb.

RB
>> There's probably not much more to say on this thread.
>> Sufficient data is now pretty much there for all to see, to weigh,
>> to learn how to learn, and to conclude.
>>
>> There is certainly no reason to reject the Hebrew pedigree of
>> ra`yon (r.`.y.) "meditation of the heart" and to jump to an
>> incorrect morphology and an unjustified r.`.`. 'bad, displeasure'.

[Karl]
>The whole reason you are arguing this, as far as I can tell, is so
> you can prove the Bible wrong . . .

Your comment is offbase, and off-topic, and borders on
slander. But it is a good way to get the topic shut down.

[Karl]
>To me it looks as if your arguments [about dating Qohelet—RB]
> have devolved to one word,

Again, totally offbase, and off-topic. This thread has nothing to do
with the dating of Qohelet. The other thread was closed because
you reduced the discussion to theology. Now you return to it as if
there were no long list of linguistic claims and data. If the thread
were open, there could have been fifty items brought to the table for
discussion. But the discussion would only have been for language
data, not for theological apriori's. You cannot reopen it here.
As the title says, this thread is an attempt to show how one learns
or researchs BH.
The thread also performs the necessary service of
exposing false claims and poor methodologies.

Karl, you have not provided a possible answer to the morphology of
ra`yon. You have proposed an error, and then seemed to wiggle
every which way in order to avoid admitting it. Your personal
judgement is neither data nor a reliable judgement.

So the thread seems to be over.
Hopefully, others have learned something.
May their Hebrew learning be blessed.

with blessings
Randall Buth

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page