>> Let me try to clarify. >> It simply means that when >> a word is used in a particular context one does not transfer >> meaning from that context to another context on the basis >> of the same word being used in both. For example, a word >> like le-shaleaH (sh.l.H. pi``el) 'to send off' can be used in >> both positive and negative contexts. > > What that shows is that neither positivity nor negativity are intrinsic to > the meaning of the verb. That’s simple lexicography.
Exactly. So why did you object in the first place to the idea that a word's meaning should be distinguished from the contexts in which it is used? >> I believe that this side discussion developed out of >> questioning your claim that 'neged' implied "intimacy". > > Oh, is that the problem? I also defined “intimacy” in the context of this > discussion as including even crowd situations but where they are close > enough for communications. Most people would not use English 'initimate' to describe a public address to a large crowd. To do so would be called 'special pleading'. Why are you trying to introduce the English word 'intimate'? > Well, to start out, בלי is not related to בלה, nor is עמדי related to עמד, > shall I go on? Yes, you should go on. Are you not aware that words like 'balah' come from roots that are final-y.? you are aware that `alah comes from the root `.l.y. עלה as in `aliyti עליתי 'I went up', related to `aley- עלי "upon (poetic form)"? you are aware that p.n.h. and p.n.y. are the same root? (Technically, p.n.h. is from p.n.y. If pana פנה was from from p.n.h. the plural would have been panehu פנהו 'they turned to' like גבהו.) Is your 'evidence' of two different roots the fact that the preposition and verb show slight differences or specifications in meaning? In any other language one finds exactly such slight differences in words that are etymologically related. Finding such differences in BH would be as natural as falling off a log. the differences are even less than differences like 'qadosh' "holy" and 'qedesha' "cult prostitute". >> >> 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. >> >> You do not see it? Why not? > > Context. Verse 9–12 are a section of how two are better than one—sleeping > together in the same bed, working intimately together… Please reread the context that you cite. 4.9-12 are various examples where 'one' has advantages over 'two', only one example is 'sleeping together'. 'falling' and 'picking up' has nothing to do with 'sleeping', nor with 'working in partnership'. However, two people certainly resist an aggressor better than one person, fitting the context to a 'T'. >> Ecc 4.12 >> אם־יתקפו האחד השנים יעמדו נגדו >> if someone overpower/attack him, the one, >> the two will stand against/resist him. > > If the one makes himself go around in circles, the second will make him > stand in his presence. taqaf תקף 'overpower, be strong against' is a word with a root that refers to 'strength' and 'validity', not 'going in circles'. The verb taqaf is clearly used in an aggressive context in Job 15.24, having a transitive object like Ecc 4.12 (reading either yitqefo 'he would overpower him' or yitqefu 'they overpower the one'), and then Ecc 6.10 'stronger' and Esther 10.2 'strength' and Dan 11.17 'come in strength' complete the BH picture while 'walk in circles' is simply forcing the language to suit one's whim. I would say, 'it is not reading BH'. For further confirmation you can look at Biblical Aramaic, should you read it, where another 5 examples of the adjective and verb closely parallel what is found in BH and have nothing to do with 'walking in circles'. [[Should you choose to ignore the above, perhaps basing your 'circles' on the noun tqwph 'period/change/turn (of time)', you should be aware that it comes from a root q.w.p. with the nominal 't' prefix, a common biblical noun formation.]] So people who are comfortable with BH have always read Ecc 4.12 along the lines that I originally suggested, two stand against an aggressor. That is BH. (See LXX for an ancient understanding.) On the other hand, if a student were consistently misreading BH on their own, I would suggest that they get more experience with the language by reading the MT before reading unvocalized texts. That is certainly a faster route than learning all of the cognate languages and doing a fully-informed, linguistic reconstruction of the language only to find out that the language of the MT is linguistically in line with all of this. (Please note that this still allows one all the room in the world to repoint and reinterpret individual verses as they wish, and even to responsibly reconstruct earlier phases of the language pre-MT.) In any case, students without background would not be qualified to rewrite and reinterpret BH into some other language based on etymologies. First one internalizes the categories and vocab, then one reads unvocalized texts, both biblical and extra-biblical (like the Siloam text where one should be able to recognize idioms like 'a man his friend/each other', without chasing inconsistent red herrings). My interest is that people learn to read BH as quickly and as deeply/fully as possible. shabbat shalom u-mo`adim le-simHa Randall Buth, PhD www.biblicalulpan.org [email protected] Biblical Language Center Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
