Randall: On 9/22/10, Randall Buth <[email protected]> wrote: > One must distinguish between what a word means and > the contexts where it can be used.
Say again? The contexts of where it is used is part of its meaning. Just don’t confuse it with translated glosses. > See 2Sm 12:12, among > others, where it is public, and in 'deed' not in speech. My understanding of the verb is that it sometimes deals with a deed rather than specifically with speech. > (Gn 33:12 'in front' [leading], My reading of the context has always understood as “in company with”, not “in front”. >> Therefore, a verb from the same root exhibiting a >> meaning derived from the same root would be expected >> to mean something like “to bring into the >> presence of, present, demonstrate, lay out, (when the >> object is speech) to make known (to present, lay out >> using a verbal picture)”. > > Even with the soft wording 'would be expected to mean', > the word 'therefore' is an argument from etymology > and the conclusion is unreliable. For examples > where etymology cannot be relied on with prepositions > and verbs, consider bli בלי, approx. 'without' and > the related verb balah בלה, approx. 'wear out'. There are a lot of false etymologies, especially with Hebrew. Just because a word has a similar spelling, or even has a form that could be derived from a certain root, does not mean that it was so derived. Just off the top of my head, I suspect that close to half the listed etymologies, particularly in traditional lexicons, are false etymologies. I wonder how many nouns, adjectives and adverbs are their own roots, not connected to any Hebrew verbal root? > > This extrapolation from 'neged' is an example of what > should not be done, unless a word is extremely > rare and one has no choice but to guess from the meanings > of related words. I don’t see why not. I view all sources of understanding as valid, but the sources need to be weighted according to trustworthiness. After all, an adjectival use of a word may reveal a nuance not readily recognized in a verb, but that clarifies the use of the verb. > >> During the Babylonian Exile, there seems to be a >> shift of meaning. Ezekiel 40–42 seems to use it >> in the sense of “opposite, on the other side” >> while Daniel 10:13, 16 even has the idea of “opposing”. > > This is also good, in that the 'antagonistic' meaning > of neged definitely strengthened in the later history > of the language. However, I am not sure that you would > be willing to go in this direction since the meaning > that you find in Dan 10.13-16 is also found in > Eccl 4.12 ya`amdu negdo יעמדו מגדו. Of course, you could > date Qohelet to the Second Temple period, but you did > not want to do that last year. No, I do not see that meaning in Ecclesiastes 4:12. > >> Many of the uses in Nehemiah seem to be deliberate >> archaizing to pre-Babylonian uses, > > This is not reasoned at all. It would first need to be > shown that the sense 'in front of, within sight' was > no longer in use, but Nehemiah itself is evidence that > that meaning was still in use. So it is a case of > assuming a conclusion against the actual evidence. My impression of the whole book that it is archaizing, not just this one term. > > > -- > Randall Buth, PhD > www.biblicalulpan.org > [email protected] > Biblical Language Center > Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
