Biblical Hebrew Forum

[leonard book <lbook AT 013net.net>]

It would be helpful for those of us - or maybe it is just myself, who are/is 
not so professional at Hebrew grammar, and wishes to learn more through 
b-hebrew, if b-hebrew members would vocalize their Hebrew words. As one who 
reads with the Ashkenaz pronunciation, i.e. KoMeTZ = 'O', I read Est.8:5 as 
'KoSher' and not KaSHeR. Therefore to thousands of Jews ‘KoSHeR’ is an 
accepted vocalization. 

 

Leonard E. Book

 

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Randall Buth
Sent: 26 December 2011 12:39
To: Hebrew
Subject: [b-hebrew] Derivation pattern?

 

> As the word 'KoSHeR' only appears once in the Bible, the example 

> given, i.e. 'KoSHRoN' is based on usage and has no grammatical basis. 

> Unless you are on the b-yiddish list?

> Leonard E Book

Before this thread starts chasing its tail it might be good to point out that 
Karl did not vocalize k.sh.r.

and that 'KoSHRoN' is not the accepted vocalization of כשרון kishron 'skill', 
nor is KoSHer an accepted vocalization anywhere in the Bible. The 
adjective/participle KaSheR does appear once in the Bible, Est 8.5. The verb 
in a couple of other, Ecc. 11.6, 10.10.

 

Having said that, the suggestion that KShRWN means "profiting, he who is 
profiting [sic--RB]" is equally strange.

The -wn suffix is more commonly 'abstract, abstract result'

than referring to a doer, "he who . . .". (It does occur in proper names 
fairly frequently [e.g. Shim`on, Hebron], but that doesn't make any common 
nouns an "agent, doer, patient"

with a "+human" attribute, to speak semantically.)

 

> y.sh.r.w.n

 

was interesting because Yeshurun is the

traditional vocalization as a poetic proper name for Yisrael. While Yeshurun 
MAY be related to y.sh.r, it does not follow the nominal patterns listed 
below and it might also be related to a root sh.w.r.

Also interesting is the comparison with the name Yisrael:

the community has not remembered its primary name Yisrael as "sh" but as "s", 
Yisrael, and not connected to y.sh.r.

If someone disallows the sign "shin" for the sound [s], did Yisrael forget 
its own name? I don't think so. It means that the community considers 
Yeshurun and Yisrael to come from two different sounding roots, even though 
they might look the same graphically. And whether the "y"

is part of the root, or not, becomes a question for Yisrael and Yeshurun. 
(Yisrael from S.R.Y.+ El.) Most commentators have held that Yeshurun comes 
from *yashur, pa`ul of y.sh.r, but that word doesn't exist in the language. 
So Yeshurun remains an enigma as to its etymology.

 

Language is a team sport, it is a means of communication within a community. 
There are several noun patterns that are recorded for -WN, including 
pi``alon, pi`lon, pa``alon, and pe`alon (using p.`.l for any root 
consonants). A community speaking the language can keep these words apart, 
while someone peering at the consonantal text can only guess as to how many 
words, or which word, a set of consonants with -WN refers.

Back to Yeshurun: there is no other example of *pe`ulun in Hebrew. 
Even-Shoshan (the dictionary, not the concordance) does not even list the 
pattern among the 242 patterns he attests, neither *yepulun nor *pe`ulun. 
Interesting.

Unresolved.

 

A basic rule of thumb for any suggestions is that the new suggestion would 
create smaller problems than older readings. E.g. last week a reading for Ex 
14.2 n.k.H.w t.H.n.w was suggested as 'two verbs' on the grounds that it is 
possible for two verbs to occur together in Hebrew. But this was done without 
discussing the extra problems such a suggestion would cause in context:

e.g. what would the shift from  'qatal-TAM'

to 'yiqtol-TAM' have meant in the context?

Why the shift from 3p plural to 2p pl for two verbs so closely connected as 
to not bother to use 'waw' "and"?

For those reasons, and more, a reading of n.k.H.w as a verb was not a 
credible suggestion. (In addition, there is no unambiguous example of n.k.H 
as a verb in the Bible, and adding a movement idea to the "non-verb" is 
likewise unnecessary. The question of whether qal and pi`el encode 'perfect' 
and 'imperfective' was also a non-starter in a follow-up thread.)

 

So if someone wants to discuss the etymology of the -WN nominal forms, go 
right ahead. It has been done before and will be done again. And they need to 
keep in mind all of the examples, like `itsabon "pain", ri'shon "first", 
`elyon "high" [root: `.l.y], niqqayon "cleanliness" [root:

n.q.y], piqqadon "deposit", pitron "solution", aHaron "last", `erabon 
"pledge", maTmon "stored wealth", Hippazon "haste", zikkaron "memory", 
shabbaton "Sabbath-esque", pidyon "redeemed" [root: p.d.y],

pa`amon "bell", tsawwaron "necklace"   etc.,       etc.,

and Hesron 'lack', ra`yon 'pursuit, thought' [root: r.`.y], kishron 'skill, 
advantage-producing-practicality'.

And the results need to be less problematic rather than more problematic.

 

מועדים לשמחה

 

Randall Buth

 

>>It seems to me that when Hebrew adds a suffix ון -WN to a verb,  that 

>>that changes the verb to a noun having the meaning -ing that  action. 

>>By extension, that can include the object or person doing  that 

>>action.

...

>> E.g. כשרון from כשר to be profitable, hence profiting, he who is profiting.

>> Another שגעון being crazy.

>> The example that got me started today was ישרון from ישר to be 

>> straight, hence morally upright, leading to ישרון referring to the 

>> person who is acting straight, righteous.

 

 

--

Randall Buth, PhD

 <http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com> www.biblicallanguagecenter.com

Really Learn --- Biblical Language Center US cell: 1-559-4958532 Israel cell: 
+972-50-8768338 Israel home: +972-2-5335367 
_______________________________________________

b-hebrew mailing list

 <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

 <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew> 
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew