Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Lexemes and meanings

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Lexemes and meanings
  • Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 23:52:20 -0700

Jerry:

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:
My apologies, there were a number of missing words in my last post.  Here is a corrected version.
 
Your mind got ahead of your fingers on the keyboard. I can relate to that. I’ve done that plenty of times too. 
 
 
Hi Karl,

 

Some responses to your last couple of posts.

 

Karl: 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.

 

Jerry: But Karl, this is simply a very well recognized phenomenon.  Words do have multiple meanings that are often unrelated to each other, as far as their usage is concerned.  They may, and usually are, related to each other, but they don't have the same meaning.  And it is not rare at any one point in time; rather, it is very common at any one point in time.


I have now learned well enough to use six European languages, one East Asian language, and Biblical Hebrew. When analyzing all of those languages according to the actions that words represent, I have yet to see your claim in any one of those languages.

But then I also totally reject the methodology of defining according to semantic domains, as I find it both making it more difficult to learn a language, and … well … illogical.

 

 

Karl: 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.

 

Jerry: Keep in mind that no one, as far as I can tell, is trying to argue that "strike," as commonly used in baseball, is unrelated to "strike," meaning "hit."  That isn't the issue.


That certainly seems to be the issue.
 

  The issue is that it is complete nonsense to argue that, in some way, "strike" used to refer to a miss, and "strike" used to refer to a hit, still in some way constitute "one unique meaning."  That position is indefensible.


One, I didn’t use the phrase “one unique meaning” in relation to “strike”, rather that even in its specialized use within baseball, it still referred back to the common action signified by the word “strike”.

For those who are not Americans and familiar with baseball, a pitcher throws a ball towards a man with a bat, who attempts to hit the ball within a 90° arc: “strike” is used for when a ball that is thrown towards a batter is struck, but doesn’t go within that arc; it is used for when the batter attempts to strike the ball but misses; and when the pitcher throws the ball within a certain area where the batter should have been able to strike the ball, but didn’t try. There’s a bit more complexity, but this should be sufficient to show that even within the very specialized usage of baseball, “strike” still refers back to the common action understood by the term “strike”.

 

Karl: 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.

 

Jerry: This reductionism does not work.  This is not at all what I am arguing, or, as far as I can tell, anyone else involved in this discussion.


Then why bring up idiomatic uses as an argument, as has been done in this discussion? 

 

Karl: How can I make it more clear, that I use a different methodology than Gesenius, BDB, HALOT and others, a methodology that looks at action and function where they look at form? And when looking at action, I see a unity of action where they see differences of form?

 

Jerry: First of all, I think you have very convoluted ideas about the difference of form and function.  In fact, it seems to me that you have it completely backwards.  You are the one fixated on a form, or an ur-function, where the lexicons are examining function in each context.


I look at the uses in each context, but not each context in isolation, rather in each context as compared to all the other contexts combined. What I find is that when looking at all the contexts, there is usually a commonality of action that fit each and all the contexts, even when the form of the contexts, the semantic fields in translation, indicate different words should be used in translation.

This is not the same as translation, where different words often are best to bring out the meanings of the passages to speakers of different languages.

If one word can be given a unique meaning for a passage, why not the next word? And yet a third word? And so forth until the passage is given a completely different meaning than what the author intended to say?

 

Karl: This is the reason I wrote my dictionary.

 

Jerry: And who uses this dictionary?


Irrelevant, though I use it every day. One area where it differs from other dictionaries I have seen—it has extensive cross-referencing of synonyms.

  

Karl: I have trouble understanding why you all don’t recognize what I say.

 

Jerry: Probably because they are too well-trained in linguistics, and aren't committed to a defending a position which is indefensible.


Rather distortions of my position. If they were deliberate, they would be straw-man arguments, but I don’t think they are deliberate, rather the result of misunderstanding. 

 

Karl: I have no idea what you’re talking about with this example, as I have not read an English translation of the Bible in decades.

 

Jerry: And this is to your credit?


The claim is that this is a Biblical example—in English. But the only Biblical uses I know are Greek for the New Testament, and Hebrew for Tanakh, as I have read both many times. Therefore an English example means nothing to me.

In context of reading the text through many times, how is this not a credit indicating that the reading was done in the original language, and not in translation?

 

To make sure this relates to Hebrew, take for example the word יכח.  Perhaps in the majority of cases, it means something along the lines of "rebuke," "reproach," etc.  But it can also mean to "argue a case," "to be vindicated,"  or "to arbitrate."  It is very doubtful that the range in meaning is to be accounted for by postulating different roots.  What we have with this word is a range of meanings, all probably related to some kind of original forensic or condemnatory context, but developing into very different and practically opposite meanings.  To rebuke someone is exactly the opposite of either vindicating them or arbitrating on their behalf.


This is a word that has no exact equivalent in English, therefore best translated using different words when translating into English.

But when one looks at the Hebrew usages within Biblical Hebrew, the common action is setting forth one’s case, whether arguing (for) (as in court), to make known (as in teaching or judgment), to upbraid and to rebuke. These are all a commonality of action, an action that has no single term in English to represent it.

 

Looking forward to more discussion.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry


Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
 

Looking at the world by function rather than by form has application well beyond just analyzing Biblical Hebrew. It was the basis for the development of the scientific method that many modern “scientists” only imperfectly or no longer follow. It is very useful to recognize ideas and concepts, and how they relate to each other. So it’s only natural that I look for the actions represented by Hebrew words, not just the forms they take.
 
Karl W. Randolph. 




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page