>> With the common collocation with 'eyes', perhaps 'in front of'. > > ... therefore the common collocation is wrong.
This makes no sense. A "collocation" exists, it is not right or wrong. neged often occurs in conjunction with 'eyes'. Period. >> Yes, etymological proposals must be weighed for plausibility. However, >> proposing an etymology, whether accepted of not, is not the >> 'etymological fallacy'. > > The insistence that similarly spelled words indicate etymology is a fallacy. > This is what you were doing. Please respond to the point. There was no insistence. Etymologies are proposals with probabilities, reasonable or far-fetched. Do you deny that p.n.y. "to turn' and l+p.n.y. "before" or panim 'face(s)' are related? Is it reasonable that 'turning' and 'face' could be related in a language when the consonants fit? Likewise, b.l.y. 'to wear out' and b.l.y. 'without' have consonants and an overlapping semantics of 'not having something'. Reasonably related? Yes. An 'overlook' (noun) in English is a place for looking at scenery. 'To overlook something' (verb) in English means 'to not see something'. Related? Probably so, despite rather opposite meanings. With Hebrew we get things like le-hitqaddesh 'to sanctify onself' and qedesha 'cult prositute'. Reasonably related. On the other hand, defining a word based on its projected 'root' meaning is a fallacy in every language, and improper lexicography. ... >> >>>> 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'. >> > >> > This is a hithpael of NQP נקף. In other words, the idea of running >> > around >> > like a chicken with its head cut off. >> >> there are problems with this proposal. >> >> 1. A hitpa``el normally has some preposition other than a 'direct object' >> for any adjunct added to a verb. (There are a few that use a 'direct >> object' >> where the meaning has a more comples transitivity.) >> Here, if a singular is read there is a suffix to the verb; if a plural is >> read >> then ha-eHad is the object. > > Normally, but as you acknowledge, there are exceptions. But the exceptions show special 'transitive' semantics like 'to acknowledge (sins-transitive object) on one's own behalf.' 'to confess (sins)'. 'to go in circles' does not qualify for consideration as one of the rare exceptions. So not only does this point call the proposal into serious question, but in conjunction with the following it removes it from consideration. >> 2. A minor problem is the fact/probability that n.q.p. is not attested as >> a hitpa``el. A person may always propose such a verb, but some >> doubt will attach to the proposal because of a lack of parallel. > > How do you know that this is not the example where it is so attested? Because of the other two points. This point then becomes added confirmation by fitting into a known pattern. Again, this is a matter of judgement. One must make reasonable judgement calls versus poor and bad judgement calls. >> 3. Most importantly, the morphology cannot support the proposal. A >> hitpa``el would have been spelled y.t.n.q.p.w. יתנקפו. the nun does >> not drop or get absorbed in the pi``el and hitpa``el forms. Without >> a nun in the consonantal text you would be required to amend the >> text and would be doing so arbitrarily, and after already showing a >> lack of control of the language. > > This is a more substantive argument. Actually, decisive. And all three points work together and strengthen each other. Ecc 4.9-12. How strong? Let us say that each point had a .9 probability of being correct. That would mean that the n.q.p. (hitpa``el) proposal would have had a 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 probability of being correct, 0.001. But of course, it is much worse. As mentioned in point 1, the semantics don't fit and the probability is less than 0.1 anyway. And point 3 has a 0.00000 probability. The result is less than Jim Carrey's response to the girl in 'Dumb and Dumber'. She said that the chances of being attracted to him were "one in a million". Jim's character replied, "So I have a chance!" The audience was expected to laugh at the bad judgement. At this point it would have been proper to admit a basic mistake. but you don't seem to do that when it reflects on the control of BH. We've been here before. braxot le-shabbat shalom Yochanan -- 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
