Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

What I react against is the notion that as a general rule, words from the same background can have multiple meanings, often unrelated to each other. While that can be true on a longitudinal study where words change meaning, that is rare at any one point in time.

Further, I distinguish between words from the same etymology, and those from different etymologies that have become homonyms. (In Biblical Hebrew, I would not be surprised if, of the Biblical Hebrew homographs, most had different pronunciations.)

If this is rare in modern languages, why should Biblical Hebrew be treated differently? I object to the cavalier attitude that because a few words in modern languages may have varying meanings, therefore we willy nilly can give Biblical Hebrew words whatever meanings we want to fit our readings of Tanakh. That is sloppy lexicography at best, and if carried to its logical conclusion, makes any and all terms undefined.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Karl,

 

And your suggestion that only "0.1 percent of total vocabulary" constitues the number of exceptions seems to me be an incredibly low estimate.  Indeed, the very phenomenon that a language can have literally thousand and thousands of puns belies this suggestion.

I can’t speak for your experience, but mine is that the majority of puns deal not only with words from different etymologies, but their pronunciations also differ. The pronunciations are close, so the connection can be made, but in the majority of the puns, the pronunciations differ. So I don’t see puns as evidence for your claims.

 

  Furthermore, it is the most common words in a language that can have the widest range of meanings, and are prime candidates for having completely opposite meanings.  Indeed, notice how the examples Ruth used were very common words: draw, strike, class.

Yet if you look at the actions behind the words, all three of your examples, you find a commonality of action. Even in “strike”, where it’s used in a seemingly opposite manner, is used in a highly specialized manner still referring back to the common action.

Therefore, how does the use of these examples justify giving meanings to Biblical Hebrew terms that have no relationship to each other, no commonality of action?

 

  You simply argue for way too much when you argue that lexemes "generally have one meaning at any one point in time."  This can only be argued by a rather severe distortion of the word "meaning."

 

Even in your reply you used a word that demonstrates the tenuousness of your thesis.  That was the word "word."  Your use of the word "word" was very different than the usage in the common phrase, "I'd like to have word with you."  As opposed to a single word, the last usage refers to an entire conversation.  The "Word of God" refers not to a single word, but to an entire collection of books.  In "he preached the word." "word" refers to a sermon.  Are these usages related?  Most certainly.  Do they have the same meaning?  Not at all.

Are you trying to say that because words can be use idiomatically, therefore Biblical Hebrew terms are in practice undefined and undefinable? That we can assign whatever meaning that we want to make any particular passage give the reading that we want it to have? I appears to me that this is what you are trying to argue for.

 

  And none of these meanings are unique, as easily demonstrated by the fact that other words in the language can be subsituted for them and the same meaning can still be derived.

Since when does the fact that each word has a unique meaning preclude it from having synonyms? “to see”, “to stare”, “to look” etc. all can be substituted for each other, but each has a unique shading that makes one a better fit for a certain context than another. And haven’t you noticed that some terms can be used in a greater range of contexts than other?

 

  So, I simply can't see how your thesis that words generally have only one meaning and are also unique at any one point in time either corresponds to reality or has any real value in linguistic discussion.  This is true for English, and it's also true for Biblical Hebrew (note the very wide range of meanings for the commonest Hebrew words).

This is why I go back to the action symbolized by a term, rather than to how it appears in form of each use. Haven’t you noticed this? Function over form. This is why I disagree with defining according to semantic fields. That’s how I learn modern languages, as well as ancient ones.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

Karl W. Randolph.