Paul and Fred: Fred has been corrected on the issue that there is not a one to one correspondence between Hebrew and English terms, yet he persists in this error. Does that indicate that Fred has more of an agenda rather than asking questions for clarification?
Karl W. Randolph. On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Paul Zellmer <[email protected]> wrote: > No, Fred, there is a common root meaning. It is just not easily expressed > in English as a single word. In other words, there is no one-to-one > correspondence between the Hebrew and English. > > Two suggestions were given when this was discussed before. Check your > archives. > > The word is neither elusive nor are the meanings incapable of being bound > together. > > Oh, and just out of curiosity, what is the "plain root meaning" of קדש? > You might want to check that your English word does indeed match the entire > range of the Hebrew concept. > > Paul Zellmer > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of fred burlingame > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:29 PM > To: Randall Buth > Cc: Hebrew > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Jerusalem (was nifty) > > קדש represents a nice word to interpret, with a plain root meaning to set > apart. And the applied meanings to set apart for bad or good come naturally. > > That elusive פקד word we discussed earlier contains no such easy common > root > meaning to bind all of the varied applied usages together. > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
