On 16/01/2007 19:47, K Randolph wrote:Sorry for the misrepresentation.
> ...
> Another difference, Peter's study was only on triliteral roots. ...
>
>
My study was not on triliteral roots but on triliteral verbs, forms
which are actually attested as verbs in the Tanakh....
...That's exactly what I mean by differences in methodology.
> Now to give some specific examples:
>
> XP# refers to the action ...
>
According to the method used at Westminster Seminary, these would
probably have been counted as homonyms even if their spelling was identical.
> Y#M I list only one root, used only once as a verb.
>
Y&M is a variant of &YM at Genesis 24:33, 50:26.
> N#) is one of the words that caused me puzzlement from the first, asAh no, not just one use, but to the meanings.
> the contexts of the use with a shin seem to indicate a figurative
> lifting up of the people with false promises as in flattery. It caused
> me puzzlement because I was not prepared to see a semantic link, and I
> was seeing one.
>
>
I think you were imagining one. Isaiah 19:13 must be N$)W "deceived",
not N&)W "lifted up", although there could be a word play here.
> #BR is a true homonym, with one root referring to breaking apartThis suggests that not only methodology, but ideology may play a part
> usually by smashing to the ground. The second root is spelled
> sometimes with a sin and sometimes with a shin, with the idea of
> looking for provision and the hope of getting it.
>
>
BDB actually splits &BR into two homonyms and suggests both are Aramaic
loans. So this is not a good example for the study.
Karl W. Randolph.
--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.