Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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 word כשרון is found only three times in Tanakh, all three times in
Qohelet: 2:21, 4:4, 5:10. The first two times can be translated by either
“profit(ing)” or the post-Biblica Hebrew “skill (see above)”, but the third
example makes no sense as “skill” but does as “profiting” (“profit” is a
better translation into English, but here we are talking Hebrew, not
English).

The verb in Qohelet 11:6 has the meaning “to profit” in the sense that
success brings profit.

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.)
>

Can you give examples of what you mean?

I did a quick dictionary search before posting the original question and
found that I had to reject most examples ending in -WN as they show
different patterns than what I was asking about. I think the majority of
the examples I saw were where the -WN is part of the root.

>
> > 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.
>

I hadn’t thought of that, but now that you mention it …


> If someone disallows the sign "shin" for the sound [s],
> did Yisrael forget its own name? I don't think so.


Is this a case where common practice preserved an older, more accurate
pronunciation forgotten in other names, e.g. Samuel “God placed him”?


> It
> means that the community considers Yeshurun and Yisrael
> to come from two different sounding roots, even though
> they might look the same graphically.


>From a lexicographical point of view, the sin and shin were originally one
letter, and the split into two letters does not always follow etymology.
There are cases where a word may be spelled with either sin or shin.


> 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.
>

The question is, does its meaning show a connection? If the meaning is
there, then we look to see how the etymology fits. If the meaning isn’t
there, no amount of etymological speculation is profitable.

Or is this merely a name? Is the use in Deuteronomy 33:26 that of a name,
or as an adjective? And is its use as a proper noun for Israel also an
adjective?

>
> 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.


Exactly! As a lexicographer, some of the older readings give nasty swamps
of meaning. Just applying the same rules that work for modern languages
clear up some of the lexicographic problems left behind by 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?
>

The difference in meaning of the two are not that well understood
grammatically. What we know for certain is that the grammatical patterns
from Mishnaic and later Hebrews do not fit Biblical Hebrew. Therefore any
reading based on Mishnaic or later Hebrew grammars misreads the Biblical
text. The Qatal and Yiqtol refer to neither Tense nor Aspect (TA of TAM)
and some of the Moods (M of TAM) are moods not found in other languages. So
by taking more care on lexicography than earlier readings and reading for
meaning, will we better be able to decipher and recognize Biblical grammar?


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

How do you explain that in a verse where Israel is the subject of the
verbs, all but one of them is third person plural?

Are we dealing with a possible copyist error? Any clues here from the DSS?

Or are we dealing with a happax legomenon that earlier readings did not
take cognizance of?


> 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.)
>

Go ahead, have that follow-up thread, except recognize that except for the
participle, the piel usually cannot be recognized in the written form,
therefore you will have to show which contextual clues indicate the qal
reading, and which the piel. Intensified qal is a non-starter.

>
> 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.


Do you have any such studies available on the internet? Right now I have
access only to my computer and the internet, no books nor libraries.

What I am asking is, is this a grammatical form that has a distinct meaning
in Biblical Hebrew? If so, what is its meaning? I don’t care if it comes
out awkward in English, just is it consistent?


> 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.
>

Thanks for the list. But if someone else has already made a study which is
available to read, I would rather see what he has to say than to reinvent
the wheel (unless his wheel is square).

K%RWN כשרון meaning “skill” is one possible reading in two of its uses,
impossible in the third, making it a fatal error. “Profit” is possible in
all three readings. That “profit” also fits the verbal use, which “skill”
does not, makes “profit” less problematic a reading than “skill”. So what
are you arguing about?

>
> 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
> www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
> Really Learn --- Biblical Language Center
> US cell: 1-559-4958532
> Israel cell: +972-50-8768338
> Israel home: +972-2-5335367
>

Karl W. Randolph.