Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

David:

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:51 PM, David Kolinsky 
<yishalom AT sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> George,
>
> Not necessarily in support of Jim , but about what you wrote:
>
> "...assume/demand that people be named at birth for something they do later
> in life. THAT does not make sense."
>
> … a characters names matching their achievements later in life makes
> perfect sense.  If this were not the case then why are so many characters so
> frequently having their names changed in the context of the story.
>

Characters changing their name was quite rare in Tanakh. In fact, this
message here may list all of them.

Where do you get the definitions you claim?

>
> Avram = exalted father AND  one whose willingness (to engage life ) is
> elevated

Avraham = one who spread his wings [?BR] in pursuit of stirring experiences
> [HMH]
>

This name could very well be connected with roots that have long been
forgotten.

>
> Sarai = one who focuses on many things (distractedly)
> Sarah = one who focuses on one particular thing [SRH]
>

Where do you get this “focusing” from? More than one root is possible for
both names.

>
> YaaQoV = one who grabs on to a thing, and examines and follows, traces a
> thing, with critical thinking (see Arabic)
>

This name mean “crooked” as in dealing crookedly, see Genesis 27:36.


> Yisrael = one who remains focused on G-d / what advances forward [SRH]
>

Again “focusing”? There are two or three roots that could fit here, none of
which fits your definitions here.

>
> AND YES I KNOW THAT YOU ALL BELIEVE THAT MY ETYMOLOGIES ARE MORE THAN A
> STRETCH AND SO YOU IGNORE MY POSTS, BUT REALLY DO YOU EVER EVEN STOP TO
> CONSIDER THEM, OR DO YOU JUST DISREGARD THEM OUT OF HAND
>

As a lexicographer, I find most of them unbelievable. Yes, I have written a
dictionary from Biblical Hebrew to English, part of my personal studies.
Thus, I find that most of your etymologies are stretched beyond the breaking
point.

>
> No offense meant to anyone on the list, but perhaps your belief in the
> paradigm taught to you prevents you from looking close enough to see what is
> being said.
>

Being mostly self-taught, I am following what I notice in the text and
language. Not having been indoctrinated into any particular school of
scholarship, I am free to call it as I see it. My call here is that your
definitions are wide of the mark.

>
> With respect,
>
> David Kolinsky
> Monterey CA
>
> Karl W. Randolph.